tv Washington Journal 03282018 CSPAN March 28, 2018 6:59am-10:01am EDT
privacy professionals. then, panel investigates how international criminal organizations use the postal system to get opioids into the united states. then the food history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal's neck. next hour, sarah cook of vox and kimberly w washington examiner
join us to talk about some of the challenges facing the health care system in the u.s.. last week, congress passed a $1.3 trillion spending bill. later in the show, we talked to stephen ellis from taxpayers for common sense. ♪ good morning. it is wednesday, march 20 8, 20 18. a3-hour washington journal ahead this morning. we will talk about the new $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill and check in on the affordable care act, now eight years since that legislation was signed into law. we begin today on the controversy surrounding the census after the trump administration decided this week to add a question about citizenship status to next census, critics pushed back yesterday, arguing the change would lower participation rates and violate the constitution . a political battle over the issue is now moving forward, and we ask our viewers -- should a
citizen sit -- citizenship question be asked for 2020 census? phone lines are open area democrats can call (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media. on twitter at @cspanwj, on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. we invite you to start calling it now as we show you some of the headlines on this topic, this question that has been added to the 2020 census -- citizenship. this is a page from usa today, census at the center of the latest legal feud, the lead story on the front carriage -- front page of the new york times -- at least 12 states ready to sue the u.s. over the census. the front page of the washington post this morning, they know that the confrontation over this question becomes another key factor hanging in the balance in the upcoming midterm election,
with democrats gaining considerable leverage should they win control of either chamber come november. we want to know more about the controversy surrounding this question and bring in chase gunter, staff writer at the federal technology publication fcw. why is this question so controversial? guest: thanks for having me. the question is so controversial because census advocates and civil rights groups believe that asking the question will cause a chilling effect that will lower the response rate from minorities, because the census data is so important, the statistical foundation for it ise and public sector, constitutionally required and has been carried out every 10 years since 1790. it is the largest nonmilitary
undertaking the government does, and its population data determines the allocation of tateressional seats per s as well as nearly $700 billion in federal funds for things like infrastructure, health care, local police offices, education, and more. the political implications of a less than accurate count could be pretty high. if this question was not on the last census, what is the reason for including it in this census? hist: secretary ross, in letter announcing his decision, said it was to fully enforce the voting rights act of 1965, and was theld be -- that department of justice's stated reason for requesting the department of commerce to include the question this time around. host: why would it be needed to
enforce that act? the department of justice's civil rights division does enforce the voting rights is where the controversy lies, because civil rights groups are saying it is not needed and the question has not appeared on the form since 1950, so that is where the controversy is. host: is there any evidence at this point that asking this question does depress response rates? guest: well, that was one of secretary ross' points that he outlined. of hundreds outrage 100 61l rights groups, -- 161 governors, they said it should not be added for that reason. and the census does a lot of testing, like testing for the
censustion for the 2020 began in 2008. they go through a lot of things, and want to test the effect of each question in a census like environment and the decision comes at a time when the census has already run about $3 billion over budget and they have had to cancel various tests over the past two years and disturb critical communications and outreach programs to get a root in with those local communities and raise awareness for the census. swiping some of the fears that have, out is that adding the question and whatever the applications of it are going to be has not been tested in a census like environment. otheryou mentioned surveys. this question has been asked before in the american communities survey. what is that? communitiesmerican survey is another survey that the census bureau sends out.
the main difference is between the dissent deals census and the american community survey -- dec and the american communities survey is that the american communities survey is an ongoing survey and only reaches a small amount of homes, is the oncennial every 10 years, constitutionally mandated count. and the environments around each one are different. there is an outreach that goes into the official count, and that is the one that tries to count all people. host: what are the options going chance, and is there a that this can be appealed to some sort of court? states are, certain trying. state attorneys general have said they are going to or already have filed lawsuits in response to this question. naacp in october of 2017 filed suit rooted in similar
concerns. and you have seen legislation in congress introduced by democrats to prevent things like the citizenship question being asked ial census.nn host: chase gunter, we appreciate the time. guest: thank you. host: we are asking our viewers as we go through some of the reaction from capitol hill yesterday, this also brought up in a white house press briefing. we will show you that as we go through this first hour of the washington journal, but we want -- yourfrom you thoughts, should a citizenship question be included in the 2020 census? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. chase gunter talking about the state lawsuits moving forward. the new york times has a listing have joined in.
new york state attorney general eric schneiderman says he was leading the multistate lawsuit . to stop the move. officials in connecticut, delaware, illinois, oregon, pennsylvania, rhode island, and washington said they would join in that effort. the state of california wild its own separate lawsuit late on monday. we want to hear what you think. maria is up first in pennsylvania, independent line. go ahead. caller: yes. i don't think for legal immigrants that this would matter. i am a minority. immigrant, a legal immigrant, i am now american citizen. if you are a legal resident of this country, it should not matter. why all ofderstand these lawsuits? let's see what happens. i think if you are here legally, you will answer that question air or that since --
questionnaire or that census, and it should not really matter, you know? and people who are not here legally and who should not be voting should not vote. that is my comment. host: but it is not for a voting issue, it is whether they will whether they will participate in the survey. do you think they should be counted as part of the census? the illegal immigrants? caller: well, if they are not going to be counted, then i do not know what they will use this for. obviously, they will not -- of course, if you are a legal, -- if you are illegal, you will not submit the senses. sus,aybe -- cenc see ife not, we will this matters. and we should see what is the population in a particular district or state, and see what we get and how many illegals there are.
host: so in terms of what is it is usedd what for, the united states constitution require every resident be counted through the census, whether they are citizens. allocates hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies to where they are most needed. census data provides the baseline for planning decisions made by corporations and governments alike. line for republicans. do you think this should be included? caller: absolutely. i'm really sick and tired of the democrats -- all they are doing is trying to get more voters and they do not care how they get it. illegal aliens vote in the people's republic of maryland, and i have absolutely had it. illegals, go home. host: mike, claiborne, georgia,
independent. go ahead. caller: yes. i live in one of these welfare states that is run by republicans, and you have to jump through hoops to get anything out of anybody, even when you are disabled or hurt or anything else, they do not care about you. so since they want to pick up they have been riding roughshod over us with this money forever. we are in the advantage here in thattates that are paying don't want this garbage and trying to help people, all they need to do is put their tax money into an escrow account, since there is already a lawsuit started. they do not have to send one dollar to the federal government until this is resolved, and it would not take but a week or two for these welfare states to realize what they had done. washington dc, democrat. good morning.
caller: good morning. victor, you are wrong. every immigrant in the united states is valued, and we should all be counted. we should all vote, we should all have a voice, and we should all be counted. that is my comment. host: william, philadelphia, republican. go ahead. there's guidelines our country has always followed and immigration. the 1952 immigration --anyone harboring,ct employing, or aiding an illegal toen will be sentenced to up five years prison time. we need to take care of our own people and draw the line and get rid of all illegals. we can make a one-time concession here, ok, but the wall has got to go up. and we need to know who is here and who is not here legally. host: to know who is here and
who is not here, if this question is included and it lowers participation rates in the census, do you think that is a problem? caller: two wrongs do not make a right. that is the answer to that one. the right way is a border wall. newybody knew coming in -- coming in is brought in legally, and we make some concessions to the people that are here, and they cannot vote for 10 years because they are illegal. that takes care of the democrats trying to destroy this country. care -- wetakes talked about the american community survey that is run by the census bureau. that survey, which happens more frequently, which has included this question on citizenship. the wall street journal has a
chart on participation rates when it comes to that question. this is a 2008, the share of respondents that did not answer on theizenship question american community survey. it was 2%. by 2012, 2014, the number of respondents that did not answer that question jumped up in 2015 to 6%. and that was not the census question, not the census, but the american community survey. your essays in michigan, democrat. good morning. -- doris is in michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. no, i do not believe that should be one of the questions. the census is supposed to look at the number of persons living here in the u.s.. not the number of citizens. people to know how many are in this country.
them by income, should, and the census tell us a lot about the people living in this country. now, do you know where this question came from? you need to look at who is the head of the justice department. that is mr. sessions. he is probably one of the few people who was deemed too racist , soit on a federal bench people need to look at how this question came about. the republican party is the party of white supremacy. minorities,like they do not like people of caller. so this tells you a lot about the party. host: do you feel that way about every republican? caller: just about, because they support this, don't they? have you heard anyone speak out against it? host: we want to hear from our
callers this morning in the first hour of washington journal. as we said earlier, this topic on the citizenship question was brought up in the white house press briefing yesterday. here is sarah huckabee sanders talking about it at that briefing. [video clip] >> look, this is a question that has been included in every census since 1965, with the exception of 2010, when it was removed. we have contained this question and it has provided data that is necessary for the department of justice to protect voters, and specifically to help us better comply with the voting rights act, which is something that is important and part of this process. again, this is something that has been part of the census for decades and something that the department of commerce felt needed to be included again. >> [inaudible] >> i am not aware of the
specifics, but i would refer you to the department of commerce. host: our phone lines as we are talking about this morning. -- talking about this topic this morning. democrat, (202) 748-8000. republican, (202) 748-8001. independent, (202) 748-8002. one of our callers was asking about where this question might have come from before it ended up being announced this week as part of the 2020 census. a story yesterday from the kansas city star says the kansas secretary of state kris kobach, who led the now disbanded voter fraud commission for the trump administration, encouraged president trump to add a question about citizenship status to the census during the early weeks of the trump presidency. more than a year later, the story notes the trump administration has moved to an act that exact policy on the 2020 census. "i will not go into the exact details, but i raised the issue with the president shortly after he was inaugurated.
i wanted to make sure the president was well aware." he is now -- kris kobach is now kansas governor. he also published a column at the breitbart news organization, calling him president trump to reinstate the question to the census. dwayne in jamaica, new york, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. this kris kobach character, he is polarizing this country by even giving a hint to 45. he is going to listen to any racist on this planet just to knock the immigrants off the map . we all should be counted because we are all here. now, it will hurt a blue state like new york city, new york state because we are not going to get that money back during the census. this is why i think we should all be counted, and that should be at. thank you for listening.
host: on which states that might be impacted the most, as our reporter we talked to earlier and several stories have pointed out, the people most likely to be hesitant to answer this citizenship question are likely in the united states illegally. of the 11 million people in the country illegally in 2014, according to a pew poll, 6 million were in states that .illary clinton won in 2016 5 million were in states that president trump one in 2016. 46% is 54% for clinton to in trump run states. and that according to the pew research center. doreen isn't maryland, democrat. good morning. caller: while i am a democrat, i feel very strongly about border security and safety. we shouldderstand why
not ask a citizenship status, what the citizenship status is? i guess i just don't understand it. it seems like this is more of an ethical issue about how people illegal immigration versus legal immigration. host: as the argument goes, asking that might lower participation rates, therefore the census is not accurate, therefore the portion of congressional -- apportionment of pride and rational districts is not accurate -- congressional districts is not accurate, and the federal money apportionment is not accurate. caller: this is so complicated. on a personal, ethical level, i think it would be -- i would like everybody to participate in any survey, but on another level, i kind of feel like well, if it is for the people in the
united states, wouldn't it only if thet to check to see citizens are completing the information? it is very hard. i am somewhere in the middle with this. if that is an appropriate response. host: certainly an appropriate response this morning. we want to hear from our viewers, and tell you about some of the reaction on capitol hill. we also want to tell you what commerce secretary wilbur ross said in a statement, announcing the question would be included in the 2020 census. here is what he had to say -- asking the citizenship russian of 100% of the citizenship question of 100% of the population gives a chance to .nswer this question has no additional in position. michigan, line for republicans. go ahead. caller: yes.
i would just like to say that we republicans are certainly not white supremacist. you are talking to a republican i shouldalf black, -- say third black, third wife, white, third cherokee indian. and i do not appreciate some of the race baiting that people do with the parties. as far as the census is these people are saying well, it is going to cost us money because the people that are illegal won't vote and will not sign it. well, they are illegal. they are not supposed to be there. they simply aren't supposed to be there. if they lose money because they are housing illegal immigrants, possibly they ought to voluntarily send them home also instead of declaring themselves sanctuary states and stationary cities, violating federal law to begin with.
have no sympathy for california or new york or any other state that houses illegal immigrants deliberately and wants to declare themselves sanctuaries of this and that and these and those. it is the taxpayer in this country, the man that works hard , really works hard in this country, 2, 3 jobs at a time sometime as a result of obama's economy that still is dwindling very and these people work hard. the money they pay into it, they would rather see go to their safety and the security of their children and the future of their children rather than the handout of some illegal immigrant. host: more of your calls in just a second, but we want to keep other-to-date on the stories other than this citizenship question that has created this controversy. in foreign policy news, aging and in the guessing game yesterday on whether north korean leader kim jong-un had
made a secretive visit to the asian nation, confirming early wednesday that he was part of a delegation from pyongyang that arrived at the chinese capital. this story from the washington times this morning. mr. kim and the north korean delegation arrived in beijing on sunday for a three-day summit. the state-run people's daily reports that yesterday, the visit at mr. xi request marked the first time kim jong-un had left north korean territory for some time. -- creating the appropriate atmosphere for dialogue with north korea. president trump continuing to talk about that topic this morning in his two tweets so far this morning. here is what he had to say. steve day message last night from xi jinping of china that his meeting with kim jong-un went very well and he looks
forward to his meeting with me. in the meantime, unfortunately, maximum sanctions and pressure must be maintained at all cost. for years and for many administrations, everyone said that peace in the denuclearization of the korean peninsula was not even a small possibility. now there is a good chance that kim jong-un will do what is right for his people and humanity. , theforward to our meeting president said. those were his two tweets this morning. anna is in chicago, independent. your thoughts on this citizenship question being included in the 2020 census? caller: i think the question should be expanded to include are you a u.s. citizen or a nott, or a u.s. citizen, if are you a guest? that means you have a visa. that way we can determine how many people are here with visas. and people who are here illegally, just ignore the question. i am not exactly sure what
the wording will be, but we can certainly look around for that. i do not know what that has been finalized at this point. i know that the citizenship question is going to be the last question on the 2020 census, that is what wilbur ross, the commerce secretary, said in a statement he put out earlier this week, talking about the census. linda is in mississippi, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i do not think it should be added in there at all. the census is to provide the number of people that are living in the united states. citizenship was never included since 1950. all of a sudden, the racist otssions and the big trump became head of the country the --, all of a
sudden it is a question. this is the land of the free. the census is just a find out how many people -- just to find out how many people are living in the country. not about citizenship, at all. wantf republicans do not to be called racist, they need to quit taking the bait and following the trail of a racist. jeff sessions, donald j. trump. host: michael in harrisburg, pennsylvania, republican. go ahead. morning, another great show. i do not like the last caller's of being racist, but i did put something out there about a week ago and i did it again. road every state, voters registration, including california, and the first question was are you a citizen of the united states of america, and are you the age of 18? i don't get it with these people . either they are uneducated, but
they just go out and look and do the research, and i said that word for word, you need to do the research. host: your point is if it is included on voter registration questions, why should it not be included in the census? caller: basically. it is just a question. chances are -- and i have put out there as well -- voter fraud and the usc code, and other things. michael in harrisburg, pennsylvania. did you have something you wanted to add? caller: no, that was it. i just wanted to point out that the question is on the voter registration form. patty, independent. go ahead. caller: i do not think it should be included, although this is a complicated issue. the lady who is a democrat who said yes, we should ask that, and the next gentleman, who said
if they are illegal, they should not be here. i kind of agree with both of those. the reason i say we should not have it on this is because of the timing. it is very suspect. suspect, it is pretty transparent. we just saw what happened with facebook and all of the data being misused. i don't trust anyone in our government right now to use that appropriately, and i think we e, but have it on ther not right now because i think it will totally
be misused. some reaction from capitol hill yesterday, chuck schumer, the senate minority leader tweeting out "let's call this like it is -- the census written about and hollowed in the constitution is being distorted by the ministries and for political purposes. president trump and secretary ross should be ashamed of themselves. elizabeth moore and yesterday,
the census must count every person. it.democracy requires the president is jeopardizing its accuracy by adding an unnecessary citizenship question. i stand with former census directors in both parties in opposing this terrible decision. one more from congressman keith ellis -- this change, driven by xenophobia, will reduce census leads to majornd inaccuracies and disenfranchise already marginalized communities. it is a blatant attack on our bedrock of a democracy. other tweets from republican senators, like ted cruz, saying yesterday i applaud secretary ross for honoring rest request by colleagues. it is imperative that the data gathered from the census is reliable, even the wide-ranging impact on u.s. policy. a question on citizenship is a
reasonable, common sense addition to the census. and senator cotton -- counting the number of u.s. citizens in the country should be a high priority of the census, and the only way to get an accurate count is to add a question about citizenship in the census itself. we will bring you more reaction from capitol hill. evelyn is in alabama, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. host: go ahead. this programked at , and what i wanted to say is in the united states, everybody should be counted. this should not even be put on that bill, because everybody .ver here is an immigrant everybody is an immigrant. the only persons that need to be over here that are not an imigrant to the indian, and don't think -- are the indians. and i do not think anyone should be called an alien, because everyone is an immigrant.
oneou are going to name person a certain name, you should name everybody a name. get away from this calling people immigrants and just count people so you know who is over here. thank you so very much. host: greg is in florida, republican. good morning. caller: yes. i don't think it should be on there. it was not on the last census, so i think it should not be on there. as far as the people that are calling in, they need to really go to school and learn what our history is. it is not necessary. it was not on the last, like i said, so it should not be on the one now. host: rob in new york, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i totally think this question should be on there, and as far as the last caller calling in, illegal aliens are illegal
aliens. they came here the wrong way. immigrants are immigrants. there is a right way and a wrong way, but this needs to be on their because we need to know who is here. we havefew tweets as been having this conversation. jody writes in the census gives us an idea of how to best spend our tax money on ourselves. making some hide in the shadows and not fill up the census defeats the purpose. it will still be here either way, just one way would count as more accurately. george writes in since the census numbers are used to determine our electoral vote distribution, we certainly need to ask this citizenship question. if you lead editorials today, the editorial board of the washington post. a census question we don't need is their title. asking about citizenship may inhibit participation and representation. and one more from the editorial board of usa today -- don't mess with the census questionnaire is the headline they went with. census compliance relies on public trust.
trying to ask this citizenship question of every household in torica is a move calculated make people uneasy about participation. noncitizens needs to be counted. patent taxes, have kids in public schools, and even support -- trying to smooth them out a participation is an idea that only an administration as malicious as this one would even consider. eddie in los angeles, california, independent. go ahead. morning, i believe it is time for all americans to vote on it. dog int way, we have a this fight. everyone of us. it is time for us to quit depending on the politicians. the democrats have all three branches in 2008, they did nothing. they did nothing about daca, excuse me, they just left the
situation alone. nowit has been going on since the 80's be a -- 1980's. it is time for the people to get out and vote and see how they feel about this tuition, and then stick to the law. they took an oath, they put their hand on the bible and said they would defend the constitution. but they are not. see, this is an invasion. so the people that are suffering from this, that have all the flack from it, they should be here with the -- to voice their opinion legally. host: do you think this is something that will drive the polls in 2018, this november? caller: what they are trying to do is keep this position among all the citizens. you have neighbors going against one another. communities going against one another. now you are talking about the population controlling how many representatives you have. that is false. if i was in another state that did not have all these illegals, i would be pissed.
you get more representation because you have more illegal activity in your state. believe it should be on the next ballot. do you believe that everyone here now should be here a citizen? brandon is in springfield, virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: doing well. is just aboutment citizenship versus residency. this is a big quite of confusion in this whole conversation. if this is to determine the number of residents are the number of citizens, that is something they will hash out in the courts. in michigan,s independent. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i kind of agree with the previous caller -- it kind of
scenes like the people -- well, on shows that i heard yesterday on both sides of the aisle, were trying to make it out of a legal and that is not what it is about. they are asking if you are a u.s. citizen, and there are a lot of will hear who are not citizens -- people here who are not citizens, they might be working on it but they are not citizens yet, who are here visas, jobs,se of and all of that stuff. so they are still using services , the infrastructure and the other things that these states have paid that feel threatened, and this administration, the amount of people who have been arrested and deported that are non-criminals has gone up 500% from the previous administration, where the criminal deportations has only
gone up by about 6% or 7%. so it seems to me like something a little fishy -- something is a little fishy about their intentions. where did you get those numbers wrong, because i do not have the fact that my fingertips? caller: oh gosh, i watch so many different shows. everything from news next and cnn, and thus in bc, npr, the bcc -- msnbc, npr, the bbc -- i try to see what everyone is talking about and see what there takes our t -- their takes are. host: it is a little after 7:30 on the east coast. we are talking about this inclusion of the citizenship question on the 2020 census. you can join the discussion. democrats, (202) 748-8000.
republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. more of your calls and just a second. we want to update you on a story we talked about yesterday on this program, we had a discussion on privacy issues in the wake of the cambridge analytica story, what it might mean for facebook and other social media companies. one of the questions that we had yesterday when we were having that discussion is whether mark zuckerberg would come up to capitol hill and testify, as several committees have asked him to do. here is a story by tony raum, one of our guest's on yesterday's program, about two onrs after he appeared washington journal. facebook has signaled that ceo mark zuckerberg will testify before congress by discussing the details of his appearance with lawmakers, according to a person familiar with those , threeations congressional committees have invited zuckerberg to testify, including the senate judiciary committee in april 10 meeting
about data privacy. that is the latest on that story. and yesterday also, we talked about this op-ed by john paul stevens, retired associate justice of the u.s. supreme court, repeal the second amendment is the headline of his op-ed. in printally appears in today's new york times. john paul stevens saying the demonstrators that marched over the weekend should take a more effective and more lasting reform, demanding a repeal of the second amendment. when that op-ed broke yesterday morning, it certainly caused a some ofiscussion, and the others newspapers who are a bit more conservative, they had editorial boards taking up that issue on their editorial pages today. this is the wall street journal's editorial board. john paul stevens for the nra is their headline. the right to own a weapon should be conserved through the state.
the nra is using john paul stevens a spokesman more than it data loads, the nra spokesperson. and one other lead editorial from the washington times, the nra merely reflects public opinion, but does not create it. board sayingrial the second amendment is under attack and the national rifle association, which reflects public opinion as well, but does not create it, is the most effective defender of the right to bear arms. nobody knows this more than members of congress, they write, who are intimidated not of the nra, but the voters of whom the nra speaks. the president also tweeting about the gun issue this morning. here is what he had to say about an hour ago -- the second amendment will never be repealed , as much as democrats would like to see this happen and despite the words of the former supreme court justice stevens, no way.
inneed more republicans 2018. must always hold the supreme court. that is the president this morning on twitter. on thisyour phone calls citizenship question and the 2020 census. ronald is in philadelphia, democrat. good morning. caller: yes. if you are going to go down this road, i think you have to ask the question do you have dual citizenship for other countries? we do not know who you are working for, and ask if you are in rehab or something like that? just find out who is really doing the voting. thank you and have a good day. host: arizona, independent. good morning. caller: good morning america. myten, i just wanted to let fellow americans know that ronald reagan through the tariffs out the window back in the 1980's, and he took the penalties off of any business owner that hired undocumented workers. so that is where the problem began.
he also kicked the hole in the fourth amendment, and me, as a bemercial driver, had to drug tested quarterly for the past 10 years of my career. so i lost a right. everybody is worried about the second amendment, but i lost the fourth amendment. we have to wake up in this country and be free, you know? isedom is what this country all about, and it seems like we are losing it all the time. we need to get these elected officials that lie out of there. i hope ourthat, country does great. thank you very much and have a great day, goodbye. in florida, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just curious as to why anybody thinks that illegal immigrants would fill out the census in the first place. host: do you think there is an under participation regardless? caller: yes, of course.
i don't think illegal immigrants would fill out the census. host: we talked about those lawsuits that have been filed, including by the state of california. is attorney general there very much involved in california's effort. the national constitution center has their reporting on the this controversy over the citizenship question being included in the census, and they note that officials from 18 other states have previously told commerce secretary ross about the lawsuit they would file on constitutional grounds, and they believed that severaleates constitutional problems, because the large immigrant groups could be underrepresented. that is the argument here. letter to ross in
february that the u.s. constitution requires "counting the whole number of persons in and adding a citizenship question would fatally undermine the accuracy of the 2020 says his and reduce especially among immigrants and noncitizens. he says the lateness of the request is impractical. states can't lose representatives in congress due to a round census tally, and the request makes it harder to enforce section two of the weing rights act, which, as heard from our reporters earlier, was what the justice department was pointing to for the reason for the need to know about citizenship status. livingston in massachusetts, independent. good morning. caller: i would like to ask a question. [inaudible] hello? host: you want to know where what all started? caller: this whole thing about
citizenship. camellegal immigrants here, outnumbered the original people, and suddenly now they are talking about stopping people from coming here. came heree people because [inaudible] came heree people who did not really want to come to america. , [inaudible]aica when i came here in 1974. -- now it iserican almost $200 to one in reverse. this is about truth. this is about justice. know that they
are not legal here. [inaudible] the signs and give me your tired, your poor, but now they do not want the tired and the poor anymore. they want the best from the country. host: are you glad you came to the united states? caller: [inaudible] as destroy the economy in my country. check your history. i want c-span to know about the true history in this country. host: mark in maine, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, good morning. i was just calling him because the constitution demand that .veryone is counted it does not say just citizens, and there is a reason for that. it is not about voting, it is about getting a head count, like you were explaining, having the
right representatives, and money distributed throughout the country. this thing that it is about voting is false. host: what is your stance on whether this should be included or not? it should not beyond -- no. we should not have a question there, because the constitution says it is an const additional. -- unconstitutional. host: if there is any question on the senses that might lower participation rates, should it removed? how sensitive should the government be to lowering participation rates? it has leave it the way been, because the constitution, if you look at it, says they want a complete headcount. it does not say citizens. it is a headcount so you can tally what is in this country. spread the benefits and the representatives for each state, participationbout so much as having a complete
headcount. sethe government can financial funds where they need so we have the right amount of representation in congress. host: do you think it would be helpful if we showed article one, section two, clause three? caller: i think it would. host: here it is -- representatives and direct passes shall be apportioned -- taxes shall be apportioned between federal states -- it goes on from there. it explains everything. it does not say citizens only. it has nothing to do with voting, it has to do with the whole. everybody that is in this country. host: thanks for the call this morning. steve, california, republican. go ahead. caller: yeah, i can't believe what i am hearing from these
people. of thely, the whole idea census is to allocate money towards a certain group. out here, we have housing problems, we have schools that are underfunded, we have a homeless problem, it is out of control. is idea is with the census this shows how many are you here so we can allocate funds for these people or not for these people? don't that these people participate in the census is ridiculous. you should come down to my neighborhood, where half the houses on my street our section eight. you can't tell me that these people aren't already in the government and are participating or as citizens? that is it, pretty much. host: you'll is in maryland, democrat. good morning. good morning, and good morning to all c-span participants. imo the comments of the previous two callers, mark and the last caller. original intent of the
census is do not determine citizenship, it is to get an accurate count of the population to allocate resources. the citizenship question actually has no bearing here. one other thing that i see a lot of callers are misinformed on is that being a noncitizen does not mean that you are here without proper documents. as much as i hate the term, but a resident alien is a legal resident here. it is just that they do not have all the rights of a citizen. so it is not really a question of citizenship versus illegal or justumented persons, and to put a book and on it, it really is about counting the population of the u.s. so that we can properly allocate resources. host: to your point, some of the numbers that are out there from the american community survey and from gallup, somewhere around 22 million noncitizens
living in the united states, a love and million undocumented -- 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the united states. caller: ok, so to that point, i think there are efforts on the way, some of which i may agree with, some of which i do not, seek to address that problem. but we should not seek a solution to that issue through the senses. the census -- census. the census tract is a totally different undertaking. host: neil, thank you. a couple of minutes left in this segment of the washington journal today. is notingated press that the computer expert who sparked a global debate over electronic privacy has told lawmakers that the official campaign backing britain's exit from the european union had access to data that was inappropriately collected from millions of facebook users. , whois christopher wylie
had previously alleged that cambridge analytica used data harvested from more than 50 million facebook users to help president donald trump in his 2016 reelection campaign. he is testifying before the house of commons in the united kingdom, and told the committee that you cannot have charting software that does not access the database. am adenylate a would have had database and access to that database, otherwise the software would not work -- cambridge analytica would have had a database and access to that database, otherwise the software would not work. if you want to see his testimony, you can certainly do that. one other story getting a lot of ,ttention this morning from cnn tempers and emotion flaring in sacramento on tuesday as the brother of an unarmed black man killed by police interrupted a city council meeting. protesters again blocked the entrance to an nba arena nearby. some video of those protesters,
upset over the fatal shooting of stephon clark. it was over a week ago that he was killed. he was killed and his grandmother's house in sacramento, in her backyard by police officers, believe he was pointing a gun at them. no weapon was found at the scene, and the only item this ever was a cell phone -- discovered was a cell phone. at the council meeting, the activists asked those in a upting to stand up and hold their cell phones, at saying does this look like a gun to you? the mayor of the council meeting ended the council meeting two hours earlier than planned. back to your calls. where it -- gary, west virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the gentleman if you back hit the nail -- a few back hit the
nail right on the head about the census. of course, your name does not go on it because it goes to your residence. an accurate count, because i worked for the census until i retired, and people who live on the streets themselves never get nowherebecause there is -- no way to trace them down. they do not have an address, and unemployment, they sit there and say how low unemployment is. how do you come up with the unemployment roll? the census does not tell you you go over to another category. you are in a position where all you do is collect welfare. they do not care about that. a want to go bike look how good everything looks, but there are a lot of people that do not get counted properly, like the other gentleman said. it has never been accurate, as long as i have worked there, and i went through a lot of the census. host: were you one of those temporary employees they would hire every time there was a
census, or were you a full-time employee? caller: i was a full-time employer roy -- employee at the bureau of the census. host: did you enjoy it? caller: oh yeah, a lot of people said you only work every 10 years. i wish that is all i had to do, but it was an ongoing thing. a lot of the data that was collected is available at the bureau, and when you let your census form, there is no name on it. this is just an address, how many people are there, certain things about your home. that's it. caller: can you speak to that concern, that fear that is out here about if somebody is illegally and marking down they are a noncitizen, fear that it will result in being used by the government to track them down and kick them out of the country? host: no, there is no way to really track them down. once it goes back, there is no address on it.
where it came from or anything else, it is just a state number that is allotted to it, and that is how it goes back. it goes through and get counted. pulled off of it, that is all it is, and it is put into a book. it takes about 5-6 years to go through all the data and put it in the book, which is sent down to the congress, and that will 25 by the time it is all said and done. and by then, we are already heading for the 2030 census. host: on twitter, karen writes while the law prohibits the sharing of the data with other agencies, i do not trust this administration to follow the law. caller: as far as the information, once the information is public -- publicized, it is available to anybody. anybody can go online in the
census, go to the census bureau, go in, they have monitors there, youhscreens, any question want to know they have the answers right there, and they cannot trace you down. like i said, there is nothing for them to trace it back to. from here, it goes to this address. once you fill it out and you b,ll off the little ta nothing is left on it. just goes back to the bureau. they are worried about the information, which county, the so they can send the proper amount of moneys and representation. host: thank you for calling in this morning. we appreciate you telling us about working there. bill in new york, line for independent. go ahead. caller: hello. i was a clerk in the 2010 census
. we tried to count everybody. groups were sent to look for the homeless under overpasses and abandoned buildings, and the thing is it is a simple headcount. it is not an investigative arm of the government. this question is just going to scare people away. i think you might even get american citizens to not answer this question. the percentage of participation on that question alone might be much lower. however, i do not think that will affect the total headcount, well, that's my opinion. host: how many years did you work on it? caller: i was a temporary hire he. -- hiree. i'm looking forward for the 20 census as well. i'm retired. host: are you going to try to
work again for the 2020 one? caller: i am. host: do you mind asking how much you make as a temporary employee for the census bureau? like 20it was something something dollars an hour? i worked in the office. i did not do fieldwork, but i went out to people who were out in the field. i wish i could remember. i think it was 20 something dollars an hour. host: thanks for the call this morning. eddie in rhode island, republican. caller: you know, the whole purpose of the census is to make sure that we have an accurate count of the citizens, to determine representation in the congress of the united states. that is basically the reason for it. i live in a state that has two u.s. representatives. because of the population decline, we are about to lose one of those representatives.
in fact, it almost happened in the last census, it probably will happen in the census. i think it is important to ask a is important to ask a question like this because the illegal number could skew the results, and i think that that is important. probably in the state i live in and throughout the rest of the united states as well. athink that adding in number like the illegal number could add into it is a very dangerous precedent. i think adding this question in is a good thing, and that is my comment. eddie is our last color in the first hour of "washington ller in." -- last ca the first hour of "washington journal." we will talk about the state of the affordable care act with
leonardiff and kimberly , and later with stephen ellis. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: sunday night on "q and a," high school students from around the country were in d.c. for the united states senate youth program. we met with them at the mayflower hotel, where they shared their thoughts about government and politics. >> i am really passionate about daca. unfair that these minimum's lives hang in the balance because our congress cannot find a solution. it is not a democratic or republican issue.
it is a human rights issue. >> a issue very important to me is climate change. the notion that we are the only country in the world not in the paris climate accord is a tragedy. every other country has recognized the detrimental impacts of climate change. we have not stayed on course with the other countries. >> we are the richest nation in the world, yet we have citizens who go bankrupt trying to cover basic health care costs. i think that is an outrage and we should be ashamed. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." monday on "landmark planned parenthood challenged a connecticut law banning the prescription use of birth control. unconstitutional and established a right to privacy that is still evolving
today. our guests are a law professor at george mason university's antonin scalia a law school and the associate dean for research and law professor at temple been university -- at temple university. join the conversation, and follow us at c-span. we have resources on our website for background on each case, the companion book, a link to the national constitutional center's interactive constitution, and the "landmark cases" podcast at c-span.org/landmarkcases. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: eight years ago last week the affordable care act was signed into law. -- forcussion of discussion we are joined by kimberly leonard of "the washington examiner," and sarah
kliff. if you are giving a state of the aca eight years on, how would you describe it? >> i would describe it as uncertain. what i think back to a year ago, we didn't know if the affordable care act would still be here at this point. republicans were right in the middle of their repeal push. it seemed like there was a chance it might succeed. there was a lot of energy around it. a year later obamacare repeal doesn't really seem to be on the table in congress. they were not able to a compost that. now we start -- to accomplish that. now we start to see what it looks like under the trump which isation, obviously quite opposed to the law but is still in charge of implement and it. we get to see what administration that has negative views on a policy is also in charge of running it.
the individual mandate was repealed as part of the tax package that passed in december and will go into effect january 2019. it is a pretty big change. a lot of uncertainty, and it has really characterized the last eight years. host: a big part of what we will be doing a next hour is looking at the future of health care in this company. kimberly lenard, your thoughts on the impacts the aca has had in the past eight years. >> it certainly has lowered the number of people who are uninsured in this country. it has also set different standards for what people expect out of their health insurance. for example, the requirement that people with pre-existing conditions are not turned away from health-care coverage and not charged more because of their condition. it certainly has expanded to government role in health care, both through medicaid and federal subsidies that help people pay for private insurance. those are kind of the big steps i think that were changed under the affordable care act. host: we should say the official
aid the birthday of the aca was last friday, march 23. we are talking about it this morning. specific lines for this segment, we have changed them up a bit. uninsured, if you are insured through the affordable care act, if you get your insurance through your employer, and then a line for all others. sarah, i want to take us back to december 26 and a tweet from the president on that day. "based on the fact that the very unfair and unpopular individual mandate has been terminated as part of our tax cut bill, which essentially repeals obamacare, the democrats and republicans will eventually come together to develop a great new health plan." can you explain the impact of the tax bill on the aca and whether that is true, what the president said back then?
>> the affordable care act is probably one of the best-known -- probably one of the and least liked part nothat people might decide to purchase health insurance, and is going to raise premiums for everybody else, so the drafters of the affordable care act thought it was really important if we were going to guarantee coverage with ever one of pre-existing conditions we also have to get everyone into the insurance pool. there was a lot of negative attention to the individual mandate. it constantly polled as the least popular part of the affordable care act. there was a lot of frustration. watch of the government tell me to buy health insurance? i should be able to make this choice. that part was repealed, so beginning in 2019 obamacare will still exist.
there will still be this requirement that insurance companies except everybody, no pre-existing conditions, and that they subsidize low and middle income americans, but there will be no requirement that all americans purchase health insurance. we think that will likely raise premiums, but we don't really know how much. . it is pretty uncertain economists -- it is pretty uncertain. economists are waiting to see what happens. going back to the president's tweets, we have not seen this chain of events where the mandate is repealed and that pushes democrats and rep. higgins: to come together and create some new bipartisan health care plan -- and republicans to come together and create some new bipartisan health care plan. that seems to be dead on arrival at this point. leonard, on the individual mandate repeal, when we have these conversations we always talk about coverage rates in the country. effect, whats into is the estimate of the impact on the number of people in this country who will drop their
health care insurance? >> that has been a very contentious point because the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan office of the government that basically looks at different legislation and scores how they are going to impact people, had projected that 13 million more people would be uninsured is the individual mandate were to be repealed. there is another office was in the federal government that has said they think that number is actually closer to 4 million. that comes from the office of the centers for medicare and medicaid services, and it looks at health care projections and their different actuaries who score that. there's a lot of disagreement as to how many people might be impacted and what the actual result is going to be. the projections do tend to take into account the belief that the premiums will increase by at least 10% next year, but that is not taking into account the fact
that health care costs are projected to continue to rise. last year premiums rose by an , whene of 22%, i believe it came to the mid-level plans. host: it was eight years ago. what was the projection for coverage rates in this country eight years into the aca, and what was the projection for premium costs? has the aca hit those goals? >> it has and it hasn't. generally right now we are seeing coverage rates kind of in line with where congressional budget office was projecting eight years ago, but the sources of coverage have been totally different than what this nonpartisan agency expected. cbo originally thought lots of where yould join compare plans and buy from private insurance companies. the marketplaces have had much lower enrollment than the congressional budget office expected. they thought they would be around 20 million. at this point it is more like 10 million.
what has had way more enrollment than expected as the medicaid expansion come of program that covers americans who earned less than 133% of the poverty line. looking back, it is easier to understand why. medicaid has no premiums as long as you are below the income threshold, whereas the marketplace had pretty significant premiums, definitely higher premiums than expected by the drafters of the exportable care act -- the affordable care act. host: over the past eight years there's been so many projections about what this policy will mean for coverage rates, for premiums. over that time, who do you think has been the best source for those projections? is there somebody you trust the most right now? -- i wouldgenerally say they have a really hard job. we have never done an insurance expansion like this.
if you look back at the history of american health care, there's three,.o, possibly expansions of health insurance but -- three, expansions of health insurance. we are talking about not a lot of information to go off for these different forecasting agencies that make these projections. but i think cbo has been pretty write about the general. they didn't quite get the mix of where people get coverage, but they've been pretty accurate about how many people get coverage. thate thing i will add to is that cbo is actually looking at completely redoing its analysis when it comes to making projections about how the individual mandate repeal is going to impact coverage rates. they got a lot of backlash from republicans who said, wait a minute, 13 million? there aren't even that many people on the exchanges. they are also being questioned by critics such as the assumption that if you get rid
of the individual mandate, you will have people disenroll from medicaid. some others would say, why would they do that? there is barely any cost, if any , depending on the state you are medicaid. in, to someone who is enrolled in medicaid. while you assume that 5 million would drop out of that program? you have a lot of disagreement there for sure. the problem was as well when it came down to battling over the details of health care was that that 13 million number was used during speeches and press conferences as an attack line for democrats to be able to say, well, they are taking away health insurance from 13 million people. host: kimberly leonard is with "washington journal." "vox."liff is was phone numbers again on your screen.
if you are uninsured, and short through the aca, and short for your employer, and all others. caller: good morning. host: go-ahead. -- here'se individual the thing when you say the word insurance and you say the word mandate and you say coverage. you are mandated to have coverage. is a different word than insurance. we should not have insurance. everyone should be covered whether they are mandated or not. everybody should be covered. that is my argument. , no requirement to have it. you should have it because you live in this country, because our country is required or is
responsible for covering everybody regardless of division. host: thanks for the call. sarah, i will let you start with that. >> i think there has definitely been the republican effort to repeal the affordable care act that has led to the backlash from democrats, particularly pretty liberal democrats who agree with what david was saying. we should have a system run by the government that covers all americans just by the virtue of living in the united states. we really have seen this idea typically get referred to as the single-payer system coming universal coverage. i think it is fair to say it has gotten a lot more traction over the past year. i think a lot of that wouldn't have happened if there was this significant -- there was not this significant attack on the informal care act. a lot of this comes from bernie sanders, who ran on a single yer plan in his 2016
campaign that got a lot more cosponsors than previous versions. there has been a groundswell of activity. y noticeable that when you look at all the front runners for the 2020 nomination, basically all of them are supporting a single payer platform. there has definitely been a shift. >> that is certainly what i have seen as well. i dof the things come think there is a little bit of divide when it comes to democrats in the senate. certain democrats would prefer to take gradual steps toward a medicare for all where everyone would be shifted on the medicare program because i think they are also concerned about what it would mean for people who have employer-sponsored health insurance. what would be the backlash for those people who tend to become a generally speaking, pretty
happy with the plans they are getting through their employer? host: the headline from one of your stories this week, "five democratic proposals on health care that are not medicare for all." >> that's right. one of the things the aca does is caps off who qualifies for subsidies. if you are an individual making more than roughly $48,000 a year , which is middle income coming you don't get subsidies. let's say you make $52,000. every time those premium hikes happen, you either have to pay for that more extensive health insurance or have no options for health insurance. there the proposals out is to basically get rid of that cap so that the government comes in and pay for any excess of , if your health coverage is more than 9% of your income. you have several democrats doing that.
senator feinstein is a cosponsor on a bill that would do that, of whozabeth warren come has also put her stamp on the hascare for all act, introduced her own separate bill that would make some of those more gradual changes. one of them would be that any health insurance company who has contract with medicare or medicaid would also have to sell health insurance plans in the exchanges. by doing that, the aim would be that people would have more options for coverage. it is something that health insurance companies would definitely be opposed to, however. in florida.e ann wanted to address the future of u.s. health care. this over the years, and my husband has private insurance and i am a dependent on his insurance, and i am also on the ssi program, i have been through cancer
treatments to see how this unfolds with people at the cancer places that i go to, and also the places i go to to have treatment. when i talk to other people in terms of the cost, not necessarily what they actually have, let me just throw out some numbers for you. for treatment for cancer, breast cancer. one item that they put on your shoulder four times, $5,000 per time. to redo your breasts from the mastectomy, from $50,000 at the hospital for just going there for five hours outpatient. i could go on and on. here is what is going to happen
with the democrats. they may want to cover these things for everybody, but somebody has to have in the future some control on the cost because i met a man who is a public manager. by no means are he and his wife poor, but she is being charged $70,000 for a drug that is like humira. host: thanks for the call this morning. kliff.l -- sarah >> i hope your treatment is going well. it is much more expensive to use health care in the united states than any of our peer countries. there was a really big study that came out of the journal of american medicine just a few weeks ago that basically looked at why american health care is so expensive. it is not that we go to the doctor more. aboutends to be a myth
the health care system, that we overuse it. , we payeach time we go significant for the exact same drug that someone might buy in canada or england or france. it is a challenge for any of the single-payer proposals. -- in anyan countries european countries generally you have a lot more government involvement, so they would just say no to certain drugs. they will say that is too expensive, it is not worth the cost, and we are not going to cover it. that leads to huge protests who want -- protests from people who want access to those drugs. how do you deal with exorbitant prices if you're are going to provide coverage to everyone? >> the medicare for all act as we were talking about earlier, the single payer run government system, does not have any language in it addressing how to pay for such.
there would be concern among voters that the system might be too limited access, that it might lead to curving the ability of people to go to certain hospitals or receive certain drugs or see certain doctors. frankly i think medical groups are going to be concerned about whether they are going to be going out of business coming whether we might see hospitals shut down, doctors close their doors. there would be some significant disruption that would come from this kind of a system. host: special phone lines in this segment for those who are uninsured, and short through the insured shored -- through the aca, insured through your employers, and all others. you can also comment from twitter and facebook as well. "i am thankful to be in a state that expanded medicaid and that the aca works well. while republicans have theinated -- so well
republicans haven't been able to eliminate the expansion and the last four years, and they have tried. -- they have tried." >> originally the drafters of obamacare had written a law where all 50 states would expand medicaid. there is a supreme court case a few years later that knockdown that requirement to optional. at this point a little more than half of the states are participating in medicaid expansion. it is a pretty active effort or some other states to join them, although from very different directions. idaho, for example, there is a drive to expand medicaid by a ballot initiative this coming november. this would follow main having a very sick similar -- a very similar effort that was successful. some states are trying to do a traditional medicaid expansion like the affordable care act intended. and you see more conservative versions of the expansion showing up in places like
virginia, debating whether to expand medicaid, possibly with a work requirement. utah is looking at a limited medicaid expansion to a smaller number of people than obamacare intended. what i really see is two things. on the left, this grassroots effort to get medicaid expansion on the ballots, and on the right, an effort to doing more conservative medicaid expansion now that you've had a change of administration here in d.c.. host: going back to the tweet for a second, she says her state thended and republicans in state had not been able to eliminate that expansion, although they tried3 have there been -- they tried. have there been any states that have done a medicaid expansion and have gone back and eliminated it? >> they have not come about what is interesting is when states expanded medicaid, the federal government cover the whole cost of that. they started going down and down, then till 2020
providing -- up until 2020 providing less of that share. 10% of billions of dollars can be a lot of money for states. host: so they are responsible for 10% in what year? >> 2020, and it gradually goes down. you have seen conversations in states where they say, how do we make sure we can cover these costs? some of them are raising taxes on health insurance companies or hospitals. they are all looking at different ways. do we implement a work requirement whereby people would perhaps find a job that allows for health care coverage. you do have some trimming around the edges that are partially to address this funding issue, but also some people feel that it is more palatable to have medicaid
be available to only certain populations. host: dale is in college park, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the other color who was talking about cost control -- the other about costing control hit the nail on the head. i had employee provided insurance, but i will tell you every time i've had it, the premiums have always gone up also. you are getting a cost increase whether you are in the exchange or private care, and i think that what happens is the services that are provided are the same, they are just shifting the cost around so if i don't get a premium increase i get a deductible increase. it is increasing and no one is saying this pill should cost this amount of dollars across the country. that is what we run into, and
that is what happens when we try to set our own state standards, and i think that is where you keep the waters muddied. host: have you ever seen a decrease? caller: know, even when i've had my premiums. you would have a deductible increase or your premium would basically stay the same. like one year it would stay the get, and then you increasing deductibles, or your premium would increase and your deductibles would stay the same. host: banks for the call. -- thanks for the call. >> i think that is really common in the united states right now, especially with the deductible, the amount you have to paper your health insurance kicks in. since 2010 or so there has been a real steep rise indigestible's -- in deductibles. an employer-sponsored insurance they tend to be lower, but
$1000, $2000, $3000 deductibles are pretty common. one of the things i find is that a lot of americans who typically would have been insulated against high medical bills are now getting them because they're in their deductible on their starting to say, one patient i talked to come a lot of this band-aid i got the emergency room cost $620? robustever really had debate in congress about health care prices. we talked about coverage. is there a chance of that debate happening? it would be catalyzed by the fact that deductibles are so high and americans for the first time a really interacting with the actual cost of medicine in our country. host: sarah's work is available at box.com -- at vox.com.
kimberly's work is available at washingtonexaminer.com. we are about halfway through our conversation on the eighth anniversary of the affordable care act, talking about the state of that law, taking your calls with special lines this morning. csr's are.hat >> it is a part of the aca that basically there is obligation for health insurance companies to provide lower out-of-pocket onts to low-income customers these obamacare plans, and they do that by getting reimbursement from the government. what happened was that president trump and those payments last year. as a result, health insurance companies kind of changed the way that they charge premiums. they still have to provide those lower costs to customers, but they did that by basically shifting some of the cost onto the federal government more to
pay the premiums, and they are still able to offer those lower out-of-pocket costs to people. host: what is the future of those payments? >> that is an excellent question. have seen some efforts in congress to restore those payments. in a weird way, the insurance markets responded pretty quickly. they made sure a lot of patience would be protected, and due to backend, somehe patients would actually get a decrease in their premiums, a more generous subsidy because premiums were rising. there has been an effort in congress to bring that these subsidies. insurance companies are a little wary of this. there is a report to talk to a number of companies anonymously that you to have adjusted to kind of landscape and
want to stay there are even know they were really scared about making those changes. issue were of an odd having the subsidies and it actually helps a number of obamacare enrollees in a way we did not fully understand until it was implement it. the potential changes, how any of them come to being included in that omnibus spending bill passed last week? >> there was definitely discussion. kimberly probably knows more about this than i do. any of them come to being included in thatit becamel than some other versions we have seen. some language about abortion funding got in there. there certainly was a proposal rolled out by senator alexander, who's been quite active on these issues. if anything is going to pass, it needs to have an pretty quickly. insurance companies right now are starting to set their rates for 2019. could obviously revise them
along the way, but we are running out of time for congress to act because insurance companies need a heads-up to know what is being subsidized and what isn't for 2019. >> right. on top of that there is, first of all my members on the hill tell me they believe they've reached an impasse when it comes to passing a bill that would help lower premiums in future years. a lot of that has to do with the antiabortion language included in the last bill. basically republicans not what any of these subsidies to go in any way towards plans that also provide abortions, and democrats think that that is nonnegotiable on their end. one of the things i think could change the balance is that the distribution of premiums we were talking about earlier, the ways that insurance companies ordered after taking away the csr's, there had
been rumors the trump administration would say you can't do this anymore. if they were to do that, i could envision a scenario in which you would see some of those conversations sparked again. we don't have any official confirmation on whether these conversations are happening or what their intentions are. host: so perhaps stay tuned to washingtonexaminer.com. linda is in arkansas. she gets her insurance through the affordable care act. go ahead. caller: yes. i was calling because they are sending out letters in arkansas about you have to work in order to get the insurance. and theyle to work, won't give me medicare because i filed for my social security. worked, i years i paid -- >> did you describe why you are
unable to work? caller: i got injured on my job. in june i go up in front of a , plus was another ailment i have going on. host: thanks for bringing it up. >> under the guidelines the trip administration has laid out, it is supposed to exempt specific populations from the work requirement. that includes disability, populations that are medically frail. host: what is the work requirement? >> states have their own that have to be approved through the administration but essentially as a condition of being on medicaid you have to put in about 20 hours a week of either or work to stay enrolled in medicaid, and there are multiple exemptions. women who are pregnant are exempt, disabled populations, children. that can obviously be difficult that is theith, so
area were people have to make sure if they fit that exception they are unable to her -- they are able to receive medicaid but also do all the that is the area were people have to make paperwork to make sure there is no disruption their coverage. the areas one of where we see one of the clearest shifts in policy making between the obama and trump administration. states for as long as i've been covering health care have wanted enrollees to follow in the footsteps of welfare reform and saying if you want to get this program, you need to begin treating to society, to participate, to eventually maybe get to a place where you get a job that provides for your insurance. this is something the obama administration always said no to. they said it would totally change the program to make people work. before the affordable care act,
certain of our -- they could not make these rules on their own. however, the trump administration, particularly the medicare administrator who is really active on this issue, has gone and make this request a second time to the trump administration, the administration has said yes. arkansas is another state planning to element a work requirement. there are a lot of unknowns about were going to happen. even the governor of kentucky expects fewer people to have medicaid after this is implemented, but we've never had work requirements in medicaid before so it is a big unknown, and i am sure a huge unknown for someone like linda who still has medicaid. there are hundreds of thousands
of people in that situation right now. host: veronica gets her insurance through her employer here in washington dc. caller: good morning c-span. i do get health insurance through my employer. deductible on certain types of procedures that sayare going to have done, outpatient procedures. of course, it is getting higher. the affordable care act, like all things, has its problems, but it is still a start. i am for universal health care. i think it is important. i worked in health care and i see thousands and thousands of people without insurance that i am trying to help get insurance. they all have that same
attitude. why should we pay for it? but i feel like just like would pay our taxes, we pay for our security, we pay for our well-being, our home, we should be able to have something that connects us with our health. the insurance has too much power with this and the cost. host: thanks for the call. >> there are a lot of people that feel the same way. the support for government run health care has grown. more as ae expected result of obamacare, which extended health insurance, extends government run system. the support does tend to dwindle when you note that there might be price controls, limits to what you can access.
anytime you have a conversation about the government funding health care, you look at what is included in that. even with the stabilization bill for obamacare, abortion conversations can derail the whole bill. beis something we will watching closely. a lot will depend on what happens in the midterm elections. states seem that more are interested in continuing to expand access, but some are doing it in their own ways. >> one thing that is interesting to watch is what happens in pre-liberal states that -- pretty liberal states that could ,ry some of these things exploring doing things on their own. could they passed their own sort of health-care system? when you think back to eight ago, it was modeled on
massachusetts building its own health care system, and the above -- the obama administration took the massachusetts model and brought it national. agowe do have a precedent for states testing out different experiments3 i would not -- experiments. i would not be surprised to see a states completely controlled by democrats in the legislator and governor's chair testing out one of these ideas. host: a question to either of you from deborah on twitter, "what is the percentage of doctors or hospitals that refuse medicare or medicaid? is that increasing or decreasing?" >> i do not have those exact numbers with me off the top of my head, but generally we have not seen a big change under the affordable care act. i think there was worry, and most medicare is very widely accepted. medicaid is still generally ,ccepted, but less so especially where you run into challenges with certain specialists.
that did existy with the affordable care act was what happens when all of these people get health insurance? are they going to flood doctors offices? we haven't really seen that happen. looking back in retrospect, you realize a lot of these people were using the health care system before the affordable care act. they were just maybe going to different places or paying out-of-pocket, going into medical debt. -- >>not like obamacare medicaid rates are much lower than private insurance. a lot of doctors will simply say that they won't cover patients who are on medicaid. i visited a treatment facility for addiction earlier this week, and they said we would love to accept medicaid patients, but day,reimburse at $130 a
and that is not going to cover the range of services we offer. what would the comparison be to a private insurer? >> i think more than twice as much, about 40% of what the traditional private insurance would pay. it would be a lot more. there are ways to work with that. i think the trump and obama administrationass -- administrations had looked at ways to expand mental health state-by-state thomas rhett can take a while. tohas caused some doctors say that financially -- i have visited with doctors who say they will not accept nations on medicaid as they can't make the numbers work. that's patients on medicaid as they chemical numbers work -- patients on medicaid as they can't make the numbers work.
>> the biggest impact of a lot moreedicaid is people enrolled in coverage who likely would not have been in my have asked for certain services they would not have access to. a state like kentucky has really struggled with the opioid of thec, they are part medicaid expansion policy you have a lot more people with coverage. we just saw new data from the urban institute showing over the past two years an increase in certain medicaid assistant treatments for by the medicaid program. kimberly brings up an excellent point that a lot of things beyond medical treatment, certain therapies that can be really expensive still remain both under paid by medicaid and just not enough of them. you just don't have enough facilities offering the sort of treatment to overcome an opioid addiction.
the biggest legacy of opioid addiction is medicaid expansion, but it is still quite a serious crisis. >> even know it does appear that congress has arrived at an impasse when it comes to the aca , they are completely coming together when it comes to addressing the opioid crisis. they have put out bills, held open hearings, but updrafts for the public -- put up drafts for the public to see. we need to address this crisis because people are dying, and it is going to become located and costly, but they are talking about it and i could see them coming together to pass a bill this year. host: less than 50 minutes left in our discussion -- 15 minutes left in our discussion. albert from georgia, go ahead. caller: i am calling from georgia. i was listening to your guests talking about working for health care.
i happen to live near south carolina, and i understand they are initiating this program that people have to work in order to get health care. the thought came to me, i wanted to ask your guests also, do they both have health care, and who provide their health care? being an, in think about the --e -- i can think about being an african-american, i can think about the time when no one had health care because everyone -- but everyone was 100% employed because that was slavery. medicaid is for the lowest common denominator. someone who cannot afford health care. medicaid pay the minimum cost to the doctor. when you pay for insurance you are not paying for treatment. you. are paying for the doctor in the medication -- you are paying for the doctor and the medication. the payment comes later.
i will take your answer off the air. a handful of states have these requirements in place . they would argue that the medicaid program would never intended to have such requirements. these are very controversial. there are people that essentially says they thinly veiled attempt to roll people off of medicaid, that it is stigmatizing and assumes that people are receiving health insurance without doing any work and all those other things. there are exemptions that are created, and i think that the centers for medicare and medicaid services says it intends to really watch how this goes. these are kind of experiments states arguing over a limited time. this is definitely controversial, and there could be an exorbitant amount of
paperwork involved and it would be difficult to keep up and make sure you are meeting those requirements. in some parts of the country it is really hard to find a job. that is another point that comes up when you look at this issue. host: we got cj in minnesota. >> good morning to you all, and thank you for your show. v.a. veteran, so go to the -- so i go to the v.a. to get all of my health care. i drive people to and from their medical appointments, and i've been doing that for the last 15 years. the time i am in driving my clients, our prices don't go up that high, and the stress i have is about no thousands of dollars to in from their medical appointments. how can this industry charge those kind of prices and get away with it and the congress not do anything about it? has been decades that this has been going on.
then you get the new someoneration, and, comes in and pulls the plug on it. it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know what he is doing, but the people letting him get away with it don't know what they're doing. i don't understand how we're going to keep on letting this go this way. >> the v.a. is a really interesting example to look at. it is essentially a single-payer system for veterans. v.a. comehink of the which runs its own hospitals, has pricing regulation, employs its own doctors, is a mini version of the british system here in the states.
someure we've covered here of the challenges the v.a. has run into with wait times and service. there's always that trade-off between access and cost to health care and trying to .alance those two things most of us as patients have typically been pretty insulated from health-care prices. when deductibles were much lower a decade ago, you might have a bill for thousands of dollars from an emergency room visit, but you would not be responsible for paying that bill. you would not see the actual charges on the backend. now that the vegetables are rising, patients are seeing those charges. host: appreciate the plug for our segments on "washington journal." we certainly have covered the v.a. health care system.
florida.ting in caller: since 2014 we lost our coverage because he said it is cheaper to get on obamacare. obamacare, and it has went over $3000 a month of paint . $832 a month we can't afford it. works for people at the lower income, but for medium income, we are 70,000, $75,000, and we can't afford it no more. host: do you have another option? >> we don't. 2014,mpany let us go in our insurance come because they said it is cheaper to get on obamacare. but since my wife works also, we will pass $54,000.
if you make under that it only cost you $500 for the same plan that is $22,000 a year right now . we can't afford it. >> that is one thing i hear all the time. there are about 7 million other americans in the same situation, love them buying their health insurance off the exchange because they are not going to qualify for subsidies anyway. this is where the question comes in. to you have the government help with those costs or make health insurance less robust? that is the debate that was happening on capitol hill republicans were saying, we shouldn't have all these requirements for health insurance because they drive up cost. and that is true. but the question is then, does it leave people with fewer protections? it is true that there are fewer options for you right now. the trump is working on finalizing some rules that would create a selection of health
--ts that would allow selection of health insurance tot would allow people obtain insurance together. you have to think about what the -- bestion is for them option for them. kimberlyf the plans was talking about, short-term benefits plans, they sound kind of wacky one of the things that is similar is they have different rules around existing conditions. those people don't necessarily have to be accepted or they can be charge higher premiums. it creates new winners and losers. our previous color might be a previous caller
might like this kind of short-term plans, but i think of someone who is undergoing cancer treatment or even taking expensive arthritis drugs. they are someone who could be by these new changes. if healthy people start exiting the obamacare marketplace and start flocking to these cheaper plans, premiums will rise for all the people who have serious health issues and need robust coverage3 host: sally -- coverage. host: sally is in west virginia. caller: good morning. i would like to correct some information that was offered by your guests about the costs of a single-payer system. it really is incorrect. number one, it is incorrect that
this is a democratic offering because we have done canvassing in west virginia, which you know votingery highly trump state, republican voting state. actually there are quite a number of republicans that do favor national improved medicare for all. medicare for all will save money because it simplifies the administration. it is interesting that you both talk about the future of health care, but you are really talking about the future of health insurance if you listen to overly -- listen carefully to your discussion. the way that it works is that it is not a government controlled
health care program. it is a government financed health care program. it would function the same way medicare does. proposal is that we go to a -- i'm so sorry, i am so nervous that host: that's ok. how long have you been canvassing or working in west virginia to push for this issue of single-payer? caller: personally i have been working for years on this issue. but i workednow, in the health care field in health policy. organization rise up west virginia has been doing canvassing in the charleston, west virginia area.
we did that throughout this last year, showing that there is wide and broad support for children. if we remember during the campaign, president trump campaigned on providing medicare for all. host: that for your call this morning. i think she brings up an interesting divide between congressional republicans and there was really surprising polling yesterday from the kaiser family foundation finding majority support among republican voters for some type of medicare for all. host: have any publicans in congress officially said they would support it? >> no. i am a little cautious. the wording of these questions can influence what people say. it is something that i've heard that speaks to sally's experience talking to a lot of obamacare enrollees in kentucky, another pretty red place.
they are fed up with their it obamacare to that doubles. that weeople wishing could just have a system like canada, people that reliably vote republican. % to taxes would go up x finance such a system. that might change the answers some. it doesn't necessarily have the hard partisan divide among voters, but it does on capitol hill. >> we say it is a democratic proposal talking about the democrats in the senate and house who are backing the medicare for all act. it is really important to point out that, first of all, national polls are showing more support. however, when you offer other conditions, raising taxes, limited access, things like that
, you have that support dwindle a little bit. a lot of that is going to influence how democrats message when they come into the election. influenceso sort of what direction we go to. do we gradually have more people go on to medicare, or do we infe think of something completely new for just the population who doesn't receive health insurance through work or a government program? mention herller work in charleston, west virginia. let's go to charleston. mike has been waiting there. host: to in a row from west virginia. we are definitely meeting a demographic. i was lucky to get on the exchange, to go through my , fairly healthy, divorce.
i paid child support come but i do get my daughter on a return, so i pay $750 a month in premiums. when i say that to people they are aghast. the reason i can afford that is because i chose to get on it to have a hip replaced. thatilver plan is 500, and i will enjoy at the end of this year when i get my daughter on the return. it is kind of high for me. surgery went well, but as an merican, i'm frustrated trying to empower myself on the cost of things. the insurance, you know,
provider to m the the insurance can't really tell cost.w much things now the allowed amount is, i kind of he premiums as extortion to drive down what the roviders charge, but the allowed amount, even the allowed mount is, you know, i don't know why individuals can't negotiate directly with the allowed to get that amount. host: mike, thanks for the call. bit short on time. i will give you the last minute so. guest: a lot of ways patients in become more involved their healthcare and health insurance coverage, there are patient consist make calls and i have advised friends of away from these tops, ou will get charged to talk
about them. there are ways to become more proactive with the healthcare system. guest: i would say i sympathize, i went through a situation, i mri and even 10 years running healthcare eporter, i could not find out the prices, i was not able to find out how much the different in dc would charge me. the healthcare system does not sympathize with those situations. bovox.com., and policy reporter there at kl, easy enough to find on twitter. thanks for your time. guest: thank you. up next on "washington journal," closer look at the 1.3 dollar spending bill signed into law last week, that onversation coming up with steve ellis from the group, taxpayers for common sense.
>> for nearly 20 years in depth nonfiction writers for live conversations about their books. this year as a special project, featuring best-selling fiction writers for our monthly fiction n depth edition. join us live sunday at noon his rn with walter mosley, most recent book is "down the iver, unto the sea," other ooks include "devil a blue a"mr. "gone fishing," jones," and we will take messages. in depth fiction addition with
from mosley, sunday live noon to 3 p.m. eastern on book t.v. on c-span2. >> monday, on landmark cases, parenthood.planned right to privacy that is still evolving today. are helen alberly, law school. watch landmark cases monday. conversation, hashtag is landmark cases. ollow us at c-span and we have resources on our website for background on each case. companion book, link to the national interactive
constitution and landmark cases podcast at landmarkcases. >> "washington journal" continues. host: stephen ellis is back at the desk. of taxpayers for common sense, joining us five $1.3 trillion dollar omnibus spending deal was law.ed into 2300 page bill. stephen ellis, we'll break down the legislation. people who taxpayers are. guest: sure. taxpayers for common sense, people can see you at taxpayer.net, at taxpayer system our twitter handle. national, nonpartisan budget watchdog. been around for 20 years. read the legislation and figure out where the money is spent. host: did you lobby on this deal? we lobbyod issues around it. it came together quickly at the
very i understand. we certainly watched as the slowly ations process grinded through in the -- over i wouldse of a year and say 30 minutes we'll spend talking about this package is than most lawmakers spent spending it. host: 1.3 trillion dollars, how that compare with other bill necessary post-budget control era? actually is a l huge jump in spending. the basically when they did bipartisan budget act of 2018 last month, they agreed for year 2018, what this bill deals with and fiscal year 2019, year, they would increase spending over the caps $300 billion in total hose two years, roughly half each year. increases overhan the last five years, just in the one package. increase a dramatic in spending and you're seeing dramatic increase in spending level, like ar's
$120 or $130 billion more than was spent in 2017. that is level of spending they the continuing resolution. half the year, they spend 2017 and now huge increase and spend all that in the last six months of the fiscal year. host: they have to spend all that? can they save money? most money is one-year money, use it or lose it. exceptions, but for the most part, they have to get that money out and that is why you dramatic boost in spending in the last weeks and months of the fiscal year. what do you think this spending bill results at the end, come september of this are you most concerned about the end of the year spending? agency that got the biggest boost, department of spending isf of the pentagon. they got a huge boost. the one thing they do have the
they know how to spend money and when you get of billions of dollars a year, you learn to spend money. times breaks on down the money that went to department of defense. his is specifically for procurement, saying big winners in the defense department. marine corps were the biggest winners, securing billion, war ships, jets, ters and fighter for weapons and equipment and set essional lawmakers aside 12.9 total for the army. for navy's high-profile submarine program. navy and -- 38.4 billion for of the and majority funds likely to be funneled into fighter joint strike program. what most concerns you there? guest: well, let's start with
ended with, joint strike fighter, f-35. the white house requested and it was not a bashful budget asked for 70 aircraft and congress said, we see your 20 more.'ll give you essentially it was almost like appropriators turned into you get a plane, you get a plane, you get a plane, too. corps, e for mat rein four minister the navy. so we saw they were what we call zeros to heroes, there weapons billion in new systems that the pentagon didn't ask a dime for. penny ask for a single and congress found money to programs.the host: how can they spend that? guest: they are going to be contracts, the other thing normally there is 80/20
you can't spend 20% of last riations fund in the two months of the fiscal year. hey eased that to 75/25, they lockheed martin has capacity to turn out 90 70 planes.ead of host: stephen ellis, want to net, if you find them. it is in there, i read it wrong. ofning us for this half-hour the "washington journal," emocrats, 202-748-8000, republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. taking your calls and questions, we talked about the military domestic about the spending side. ho are big winners in this omnibus spending bill? guest: we saw certain areas, for
instance, the president requested zero spending for the lock grant program, which normally gets 3 billion. it goft boost of million dollars on top of that. from zero request to about $5 billion. back ton you trace that who put that in? guest: it's hard to figure all of that out. know who is on the subcommittees, but the thing is, $143 when you add in billion on top of what the budget control act was going to to find places to stuff it. hese are areas where there is reflexive muscle. congress is used to spending on community development block grant that, is where money goes. cuts got cies set for big boosts. basically went in with the house for a little ing over $6 billion for the army orps of engineers and at a conference, it got 6.8 billion, more than the house or senate.
of house rock version of okay, we'll hash out the differences and take one came together , and put in more than the house or senate had originally. host: marsha in englewood, florida. democrat. ahead. caller: hi, thanks for c-span talking tephen ellis about this important subject. omnibus us about the bill that was pushed through it, 2322 ny, what was pages of individual bills. how many of those bills were actually covered during the year but neither paul ryan or mitch mcconnell would allow to come to debate so they wouldn't have had to be included in this omnibus bill? guest: hi, marsha, thanks for the question. 2232 pages was the omnibus, plus another 1500
of explanatory text. that compiled, when you do like this, 12 different spending bills that fund all of funding for nary government. this is jammed, all 12 of them together. the house actually voted and passed every single one of the didn't bills, but they necessarily resemble what came on the final product. didn't actually pass any spending bills, they had all drafted, but didn't any of them. the final package looked than ent in many ways either the house or senate came up with. host: the caller brings up republican leadership. want to read from rick moran's iece from american thinker, conservative website. he wrote, the republican party, nce the party that stood for lower deficit and reducing national debt, controls house house, ate in the white
has become party of big spenders, budget hawks, used to on policy, have become irrelevant. would you agree? i consider myself a budget hawk, i hope i'm still somewhat relevant. lean days. you had the tax package that went from being in the summer mcconnell promises it to be revenue neutral to adding dollars to the national greater thanllions gdp. you have this package, add to was agreed upon under giving drunken sailors run for their money. democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well, thank you. the reason i'm calling me that e it seems to the -- whenever they had these or whenever they
say, is, they come out and we're going to spend this much money and here are the programs we're going to give the money to. but the american people, i don't see them being represented, it being represented is all of the donors and the obbyists that lobby the congressmen. i'd like to know exactly what is are we merican citizen supposed to do to be represent? are are told we represented. we vote for representation and people vote in whatever they want to vote in. t seems like it doesn't really meet the demands of the people, lockheed ands of
martin. guest: thanks, wayne. i have a hard time disagreeing with the caller, with wayne. one of the issues, these are the people who are in their ucci loafers, in the halls of the corridor of congress and speaking to power. i also challenge my fellow it is to engage their lawmakers and to try to better understand what is going legislation and demand accountability from their officials. and it is going to take time. me wrong, they are here all week and obviously but theyizens are not, can at town halls and calls to awmakers, they can demand greater accountability and also learn about the budget and some become informed citizen. host: if you want to call and become an informed citizen on
phone lines are open in this segment. democrats, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. send a tweet or send a message on facebook. how itter, mary writes, does your organization feel about the trillion and a half the aw that gave breaks to wealthy, now taxpayers are left olding the empty bag with the omnibus bill, the republicans controlling both houses and equals racket and scam against the people, mary writes. saying earlier, we were for tax reform. we clearly need tax reform, more years since we've had the last comprehensive tax reform. reform.'t get tax we got a hugely costly tax cut, were promised and what we wanted to have was deficit neutral tax reform. eliminate breaks in expenditure and lower the rate and pays for
in that respect. you had this other, you know, and i llion bipartisan will point out bipartisan budget $300 billion more dollars to the debt and so we supportive of that either. were e certainly, we supportive, not that we wanted a government shutdown, but was in his right this package. and instead of congress going on recess, spend 16 more than 28 seconds senat page. had to reach each host: how did you feel when the president said he was have an the omnibus on spending bill? going to ink he was veto it? guest: certainly there was a ossibility and that ended up
being a thing. you know, i would also point out that the president can't come in at the last minute and they need to be engaged in the whole rocess and be realistic in budgeting. when you ask for instance, zero cbdg and congress giving it 3 billion per year, you got to deal with reality and to have that approach and realistic budgeting. host: to tim in lakeview, arkansas, an independent. good morning. aller: good morning, c-span, thanks for taking my call. that tremely disappointed the president didn't veto it. i'm not surprised the democrats, the leftists want to spend us destroy slavery and the constitution, that is what they have been about for a long time. call themselves republican and haven't got a conservative bone in their body, started when president trump was elected, the
thing, the leaders, paul ryan and mitch mcconnell didn't put the same bill through that every time when obama was in office, to repeal the healthcare. on that. to spend and now mitch mcconnell signs the last until second. it is more than drunken slavery treasonous. i think he should be out of there and the senate hasn't been to the states they are supposed to represent for years, they placed themselves in forever, they won't leave and they don't answer to anybody elected. are we need to go to convention of tates and set the rules the budget going down 5% every year ready budget has to be six month necessary advance, not the last second. your call, s for tim. oftainly we see there is one
the small glimmers, good things coming out of the bipartisan sort of t was this out budget figure reforms. ince the budget process was gone four d in 19 times, the last time was 1997. -- buy a wuj et any old budgeting, sunset things that can actually have some teeth or maybe empowering and making the of being tead resolution, where it guides spending, actually making it a greater buy-in from the other committee chairman. a few things we're looking seeing coming out of that, clearly we have a broken budgeting process. to go to ink we need convention, we
can deal with the congress and law. charts and figures, one figure of outstanding public debt. taxpayer.net website showing the public debt from the 1940s until today, to give you the second up to remind us where we are the debt ceiling? guest: what they did on the debt basically just essentially said ignore it, march. it until next nd so then in that time, whatever the debt is will become the new debt ceiling. it, instead pended of increasing it, they used to ncrease it by trillion dollars or something along those lines. they essentially said, suspend 2019 and then of
whatever it is in march of 2019, the new debt ceiling. they got themselves past the and into the next congress. host: to creek, mississippi, al, republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is my question, i'm so i don't consider taxpayer, when you take the oelths debt owed and divide next of taxpayers, what use to come o you -- people that get back unearned income tax check aren't taxpayers, where do you come up with number you divide by to out how much each axpayer would owe on this
tremendous debt? guest: well, al, it is a question, i don't exactly have the numbers in front of me, but i think in the end, it is all of our debt, it is the national debt. is really a challenge that we're all going to have to deal face.and host: here is how the folks at down, debt break it per citizen, 64,000, the debt taxpayers 173, 500. don't have how they come up with the numbers, but that is how they do it on u.s.debtclock.org. waltz in pennsylvania, republican, good morning. good morning. first of all, pops on both not blame will democrats or republicans, they both done this. the constitution, it should be done in front of the full body senate and ess and
there should be no money given. need six thing, you sigma to start watching this people, that are independent before it happens. chuck schumer has tunnel from new jersey to new york. in pittsburgh, supposed to be 300 million, cost $600 million. this, more watch kickbacks in the end from schumer's lobbyists, just like will not say it is all democrats, just seems like schumer is one of the worst hear him talk. frb, g -- real problem. lobbyists.the i am sure the constitution idn't count on people getting money for being in office like this. that is my point. guest: thanks, walt. certainly there is money is the milk of politics, so
certainly there is a lot of campaign cash going on and one we've been concerned about and certainly tried to ollow the money on these projects. walt is referring to the gateway sadlyt, which is actually more than a lot more than $300 in ion, it has that amount roughly in the legislation. and so one thing, though, i say and you got to look for the pearls amongst the swine in this piece of legislation, about, is re happy hat there is research arm of congress, congressional research service, part of library of congress and all reports were to congress. they were not released to the very , which created interesting almost black market of service reports you could pay get the service to reports for you. now those are all going to be made public. of is one piece legislation, something we worked on.
host: why is that important? want to know what is in the legislation beforehand. nonpartisan analysis of facing ion, of issues congress, of actual what is in bill so to speak, so -- host: members themselves asked research on legislation. guest: exactly. exactly. specialties all across the board and this is very useful source of information to the public and lawmakers found it use sxfl from our perspective, tax ollars for funding this and we're supportive of it, taxpayers should be able to see what the results of the information are. say, though, that it lawmaker event, if wants to talk about how legislation would work or how to they can have private conversations, it is when they do actual reports, public. made host: did taxpayers take a position on gateway tunnel
project? guest: our whole thing on infrastructure and see portation, we want to it paid for. one of our concerns, i don't specifically about this particular project, make ure it is done in equitable fashion, make sure the state of new jersey and state of new york are going to be putting up their share of the cost and taxpayers will kick in whatever is the responsible share for the government, if this is a project national interest. south dakota, , bill, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. why the 1984 plan by isn't being talked anymore to get rid of the debt? guest: i have to say, i'm not familiar with that plan, the debt in k that and of itself, this will sound watch oming from budget dog. last time our debt was roughly ii. size was world war
i don't think anybody argues that was worth paying and going for.debt there is responsible level of that. it is when you get to in excess gdp, gross domestic product interest ok at or net payments to service that debt and looking at now net interest ayments by the end of the decade, $800 billion a year just that debt.rvice it is really about controlling making sure annual deficit spending is responsible debt as percentage of gdp, rather than trying to eradicate it. host: john, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have three points i would like to make. first one, i remember the republicans came on and during administration and nancy pelosi , said pass the bill and read it. it.s it and read
we see the same thing they criticize the democrat about and same thing. the other thing about it, also, bill, $800 billion go iing southmy was scream, scream, scream obama is doing this and obama is doing that. have a bill. is 1.3 trillion. months.only for six i just don't understand why they us healthcare, but can find all this money to put armed forces. this just is ridiculous. john, just to clarify some things. one, we agree about reading the bill. there are rules, they are
actually have certain amount of time to read the bill that are routinely waved. thing i would flag on the stimulus, what you were talking about, the trillion the rs that was basically american recovery and reinvestment act, i believe was the name. was on top of the annual appropriations so they did their probably about that point trillion dollars in iscretionary spending for fiscal year 2009 would be about that time frame and then did the of that.on top so it was additive to the actual then the last thing, 1.3 trillion is actually for the just for sixs, not months. operating under continuous resolution at 2017 from october 1, to when the bill was signed into law. is basically covering the whole 12-month time frame over the huge jump
way the rate of spending, the burn rate of dollars, if you six months and they have to spend more in the last six months which leads to waste. host: domingo, in midland, texas, independent, go ahead. good morning. if you , you have no -- [indiscernible] -- money from the i.r.s. tax that is not nd -- true. -- y solution, which i money, you know. as good as ey just
the old money. this is the new money they are to -- tax cuts and to -- --and money gave host: got your point, do mingo, did you get that? think so. printing new money will devalue the currency, something a lot of do when they are in debt problems, that is not a responsible way to deal with this. it will right now, the dollar, part of what helps us as country that the dollar is reserve currency of choice for the world. debt, debt is ng attractive, keeps interest and we print rates low, if cash, devaluing the dollar, then essentially we're going to then much more to at
people to buy our debt. ost: how do you feel about earmarks in congress? guest: considering i used to earmarks, housands of i was very happy. no, we've been concerned about testified earlier this year before the rules committee and the house about earmarks really don't, people talk about how it would things along and -- host: currency and trade? earmarks get ity, you more earmarks. since 1974,earlier, we've done the spending bills on time four times. we had no earmarks basically in that time frame. e had little earmarks, we had some earmarks and we had 15,000 earmarks in 2005. earmarks didn't afrnt the differences and challenges are reater than you would find bridged by earmarks. host: did you get a sense after momentum ng there was
for return of earmarks? guest: the beginning of this congress, there was momentum for earmarks, but i think and some others ose, the challenges, the real problems, sounds simple, but in and ty, there is waste abuse, you may think your earmark is great, you have to ote for that other person's earmark, as well. if you are republican, you vote democrat's earmark. it was bipartisan endeavor, our the sis, majority 60% of funding, minority got 40% of funding. in reality, appropriators got earmarks.of the some bills, i could tell you basically on the 2005 bill, i could tell you pretty much where you sat in proximity to the chairman got.w much money you host: last call, julius in florida, democrat. good morning.
caller: yes. i would like to know when the in, how insurance companies get money for medicare. how long for the general public? guest: well, i can't speak about companies, it is not by bailiwick, but as far as the bill, certainly depends on where, you know, where you are income scale, and certainly basically just about everybody get some level of a tax cut. be one thing i will flag, most expire in, almost all 2026. whereas, most corporate and made ational side, we're permanent and so that is the eason why you're hearing talk of the second generation tax bill because they want to deal ith issues of individual
provisions and they made them 10-year rly inside the window, reduce price tag, but it well.ng to be costly, as host: plenty more to talk about next time you come back. time. you for your stephen ellis, vice president of taxpayers for common sense, taxpayer.net. next on "washington journal," open phones, any public policy issue you want to talk about, lines are yours to do it. democrats, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can start calling in now, we'll be right back. >> for nearly 20 years in depth featured the nation's best-known nonfiction writers for live conversations about their books. this year as special project featuring best-selling fiction writers for monthly rogram in depth fiction edition.
join us live sunday noon eastern ith walter mosley, his most recent book is "down the river, nto the sea," his other books include "devil in a blue dress," and "fearless jones," and other books and mystery series. during the program, we'll take calls, tweets and facebook messages. our special series, in depth edition with author live from ey, sunday noon to three p.m. eastern on book t.v. on c-span2. >> c-span,y >> c-span, wherry unfolds daily was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the supreme se, court and public policy events and around n, d.c. the country.
c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it's open phones on the 10:00ngton journal" until this morning when the program ends. until then, any public policy issue you want to talk about. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we started our program today talking about that question on census asking about citizenship and the lawsuits that it sparked and the pushback from democrats on capitol hill. california rs from noting the state filing own suit ver that question being census. in the 2020 question sparks lawsuit, state query could hip lead to major undercount.
one of the topics we covered today. talk about any topics or whatever is on your mind. richard, butler, kentucky, republican. good morning. years i know, i'm 71 old, you know, only two shows run as long as anything on t.v. the bounty hunter and the u.s. senate and congress. show over andsame over and over. is way you change things get new party, these parties are both corrupt, work the same way. very much. host: richard, why do you call yourself a republican, then? i mean, i'm going to vote. if you're an independent, you primaries, n the right? right now we need a new i think that donald trump showed that, we thought he was be different. host: has he been different, richard? been different? caller: he's different in some
line, when he bottom right to dover, i knew then and there he was going to change when he came back. his marching orders, just like they have mcconnell. e talked about town hall meetings, you know how long i wanted a town hall meeting with mitch mcconnell? year. massey, for a year. rand paul, for a year. them meet with the people. they want you to get on the computer, most older people like me don't have computers, they on't want to look you face-to-face anymore. host: if you had a chance to ask mitch mcconnell a question, what him? you ask caller: where was the heart shipped jobs you to mexico and china. 1000 people lost their jobs and i didn't see anybody, any news else down there elevating these people and
aying, how do you feel, what are you going to do now. , ery time something happens okay, south florida, how many times we bailed florida out of a times we how many bailed any city out? here is outcry for these people? drove truck for 35 years, i told everybody, your job is next. they will never shut down do -- lants, never shaut shut down auto plants. he plan was to break the back of the blue collar worker. mexico, $2 an hour. can't compete with that. ost: thanks for the call from butler. krista, glen mills, pennsylvania, democrat. go ahead. actually in pennsylvania, but resident of california. and i have two comments. about the question on the census. iving in california for 30 ears, hispanics are our
neighbors. host: go ahead, krista. in california for 30 years, hispanic people are our neighbors, we see them in store, we see them in church, we see them everywhere. o me, they are part of the fabric of our state. they contribute to the state and don't think anybody should answer say, have to citizens. they are my neighbors, my am.izens, same citizen as i my second point is that everyone the budget was talking about they don't feel represents them. we need to get rid of the electoral college. person, one vote and that would get rid of one of the situations that the politicians control us with. you for listening. host: william, tenor, louisiana,
republican, good morning. good morning. host: go ahead, sir. trying to figure out the -- said earlier, that was that we had -- go og for the years and ething about the job go overseas and all. how they fix this, that is what out, what cangure we do to fix this to get back on track? ost: what would you propose, william? caller: huh? propose to ould you fix it? caller: go back to the old on ing board, get back track, no matter republican or democrat, we're all american. is in kinsman, ohio. line for democrats. good morning. morning.good thanks for taking my call. i just wanted to make a comment
people so re reluctant to pay taxes? going to later you're have to, you're going to pay or state level. and federal level. our police, i don't think teachers, policemen, they are not making enough money. pay for.hat you if you would start policemen out a year, rather than you r $40, you know, maybe wouldn't have people getting murdered in the middle of the street. west virginia, they went on strike. 30,000 dollars a year, they in west virginia. a person with a bachelor's in education, starting ut at $30,000 a year is ridiculous.
it's totally ridiculous, who that job? you could make more in a mill, you can make more sweeping the floor, you could make twice that sweeping the floor in a union week.orking 40 hours a host: john, do you think you pay taxes?are of caller: pardon me? host: do you think you pay a of taxes? caller: yes, yes, i'm retired now, but i pay, i was in the 35% cried about ver paying taxes. host: would you pay more? caller: if it was dollar for dollar. what we pay to the defense budget and another dollar went programs, sure i would pay more. to pay more to police the world, while we have kids in this country going food, it's ridiculous. host: thanks for the call.
ohio, , in mount victory, independent. open phones, what do you want to talk about? caller: good morning, john. clear up something. about a month and a half ago, we talking about the national debt. 21 trillion dollars and you were what your listeners would alleviate that debt. well, let's wipe out the space program. billion,ld amount to 20 that is just a drop in the bucket. me ayou, i think you threw curve ball, you say, well, what would you do with that money? answered some nonsense answer, but now i'm telling you, apply every penny of hat $20 billion of the space program right against the 20 or
dollars of our debt. t seems to me, the only way we can ever lessen our debt or get rid of debt completely, to start paying against it. that is about all i've got to say, john. thank you. follow-up ks for the from the previous question. he current u.s. national debt, 21 trillion, 51 billion, 428 million dollars and counting. richard is in san diego, california, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i come to this with a little bit of authority. for the federal government as an accounting clerk. trillion, about $11 trillion of that was unfunded liabilities from the bush-cheney years. not paid for by the
part d wasd medicare ever funded by the government by taxes. taxes to on't raise pay for wars overseas and iveaways that bush and cheney wanted to give away, now you know where we're at. and the other 9 trillion is to the attributed downturn in the economy during the obama years. my call. for taking host: joan, rochester, minnesota, democrat. phones, good morning. caller: hi, i want to talk to deaths of the he black men that are happening in this country. socialists, not the socialists, nationalist party quieted down have and i think the men in that
rogram are going into our police forces because i don't was an average thing to be shooting people in the streets. shooting a man 20 times in his ackyard, i believe the ationalists, aka, facists, bad people are joining our police forces and taking care of them in a different way. of being outwardly against the blacks and being racist, they are going into our police forces and shooting these men. joan, you think police shootings of african american phenomena?w caller: to the extent there is arrests, that they're just shot indiscrim natalie orhout talking to the people without finding out if they are do, i or not armed, yes, i think the only people that would be involved in a program like
would be the fascist people and are kind of in hiding, we don't hear about them anymore, the reason we hear about them anymore, they are going into programs they can take care of the different rican a way. host: mike is in las vegas, nevada, democrat. good morning. morning there. good morning. was wondering about the big tax hike and everything that tax went out there, the bill. host: what were you wondering about it, mike? fact they don't talk about trillions of dollars 20 trillion, the 14 trillion dollars of that is owed to the american public, the american tax dollars that you social en out of security and other programs, is that a true statement?
host: mike, i could have come in and explain the -- where the $21 trillion from.omes certainly something worth one of on the ey segments "washington journal." carol in fair mont, west virginia, an independent, what is on your mind? yes, i was calling in to say congress is on both sides we, the american people, should stop painting each other with broad brushes democrat and republican. and as far as the daca children, they should be given a a path to , citizenship, they have been here so long, it is the only country they know. you for c-span, for taking my call. host: carol, do you think there a path to toward citizenship? do you think the democrats, can licans, the president come together to do that? caller: yes, i do.
to keep thehey were they hildren in mind as have been here, they wasn't brought here on their own accord. can nk that is where they find some bipartisanship. quit would rather almost painting each other with broad brushes, republicans and democrats. call.thanks for the phil in pine bluff, arkansas, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. the gentleman earlier that spoke louisiana, thend question about what to do is for the congress. and the way to pay the debt down is flat tax with no deductions, o loopholes, just everybody pays flat tax. thank you, sir. host: before you go, what is limit, how many terms is enough? be for i think it should house of representatives, it and d be 10 years maximum
for the senate, two terms, which years. 12 host: could somebody do both hings, serve in house for 10 years and senate for 12 years, be on capitol hill for 22 years, okay with that? caller: no, sir, one or the other. one or the other, sir. host: all right, chris, oregon, line for democrats. good morning. morning.ood host: go ahead. caller: i would like to comment lot of gun a ownership. how train their citizens on to do everything. i was thinking that we could use military to train our citizens and show them military safety, which is where we need to go in the direction of gun safety and how we tore our weapons and practice shooting them and cleaning them.
thank you. host: chris, would you be in favor of new gun control laws, doing now should be that we're not doing? caller: no, definitely a lot we doing more. we need to look at what is working for other countries, hat other countries have learned. we definitely learn from each know, nd what works, you try different things out in states.nt same time, guns are crossing state lines because some states less gun restrictions, track guns not as well and then that are people manufacture guns outside the number without serial necessary small, rural numbers, not mass quantities. to ink we would also want track how many guns gun manufacturers are making and how weaponstails on are distributed and manufactured. associate justice of the supreme court john paul
stevens raising a lot of eyebrows with this column, this op ed in today's "new york repeal the second amendment. it's got know a lot of attention in the past 24 hours. published today, but available online yesterday. john paul stevens writing the weekend tors over the for new gun control laws should seek more effective and lasting reform, they should demand appeal of the second amendment. that a national standing army might pose a threat to security of separate led to adoption of second amendment, which provides well militia for free state, right of the people to arms shall not be infringed. concern is relic of the 18th century. john paul stevens op ed getting ushback by conservative editorial boards in national "wall street ing journal." john paul stevens, the nra is
headline they went with. give credit to former justice for honesty about what most gun deepen ers believe progressive hearts, they write. right to own a weapon should be preserved for the state. look for nra, use them as dana loche.re than editorial ton times board, as well, with op ed, or oad editorial today on the issue on the gun issue and the president in one of his three also, bringing up the second amendment saying the second amendment will never be democrats much as would like to see this happen and despite the words yesterday rom the former supreme court justice stevens no way, we need more republicans in 2018, must hold the supreme court. the president earlier this morning on twitter. lamar, south carolina, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. taking my call.
andsten to you all the time peep and he will what they have to say. the budget this morning, the talking, i washad flabbergasted that when they ave a budget and then they decided well, i'll ask for $100 $110.on and they give him i don't see anybody at work and saying i want to raise the and the guy saying, give you $5 more an hour, i think good, we need to spend this money. ost: steve ellis pointing out sometimes there are requests for no money for a program and they millions. caller: and they have to spend it all, they are rushing to get and don't care how they it.nd make sense they put money back in there and have more for the year for whoever needs it. everybody wants to spend, spend, pend f. a company balanced their books the way we do ours, they would be out of business.
of e going to be out business. you know, i don't know, can a is try go bankrupt, that where we're headed. how much money out of a paycheck taxed and be able to live, you know. hey act like the public is going to take care of everything and they're not. they can't. social security, i don't social nd why on security it cuts off certain amount of money. pay ad to pay federal tax, state tax, have to pay medicare forever.all those are why is social security cut off? that should be higher money you you should pay forever. i think that is -- what should be. i don't think because you make $120 or $130,000, you should quit. lamar, south rom carolina, last caller on today's "washington journal." we'll be back again tomorrow 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific, in the
meantime, have a great wednesday. >> here's what's ahead today on c-span. this afternoon a discussion with u.s. justice department officials on privacy, the law and government surveillance. this is part of the international association of privacy professionals 2018 global privacy summit. live coverage begins at 1:30 p.m. eastern. commissionhelsinki