Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal 02112019  CSPAN  February 11, 2019 7:00am-10:05am EST

7:00 am
preserve social security. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal is next. is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] ♪ host: good morning. it's monday, february 11, 2019. the flags remain at half-staff after the death of former congressman john dingell of michigan and yesterday the house lost congressman walter jones of north carolina who began serving in 1995. died yesterday at age 76. the chamber will gavel in at noon eastern. the senate is back at 3:00 p.m. we begin following the release of the green new deal by
7:01 am
alexandria ocasio-cortez and other congressional democrats. wanted to know if you think the united states needs a green new deal. give us a call if you think it does, 202-748-8000 is the number. if you think united states doesn't need a green new deal, 202-748-8001. you can catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is a very good monday morning to you. here is the green new deal. showing theon outline of the green new deal. .ouse resolution 101 psalm 70 other house democrats signed onto the proposal. it was released last week on thursday. she talked about the global
7:02 am
impact of her plan. >> it is comprehensive, thoughtful, compassionate and economically strategic read today is also the day we choose to assert ourselves as a global leader in transitioning to 100% renewable energy and charting that path. that means we are not going to peg ourselves by the lowest standards of other nations. it doesn't mean we are going to say what about them, they are not doing it. they are not doing it, why should we? we should do it because we should lead. we should do it because we are a country founded on ideals, a culture that is innovative and cares for our brothers and sisters across the country. that is why we should do it. we need to save ourselves and we can save the rest of the world
7:03 am
with us. host: does the united states need a green new deal? hey paul on facebook if you want to join on social media. we ask you to call in. if you think the united states does, 202-748-8000. if you think it does not, 202-748-8001. the resolution, about 14 pages long available on the congresswoman's website. it's the duty of the federal government to create a green new deal to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just -- create millions of good high wage jobs and ensure prosperity and invest inecurity to the infrastructure of the united states and meet the challenges of the 21st century. to secure for all people of the united states for generations to come clean air and water, climate and -- a sustainable
7:04 am
by stopping current preventing future and repairing repression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low income workers, women, the elderly and youth referred to as frontline and vulnerable communities. aboutent trump tweeting the green new deal. his thoughts about democrats talking about this subject. he said i think it's important for democrats to press forward. it would be great for the so-called carbon footprint to permanently eliminate planes, cows, oil, gas in the military. we will talk more about the resolution. does the united states need a green new deal? paul is up first in kentucky on the line for those who say we do not. caller: this is the most
7:05 am
ridiculous thing i ever heard in my life. every building in the country has to be reworked. everybody has to use their cars, no planes. stupid. they want to change how you eat and dictate every single thing of what you do. it will never be done. i am not going to give my car up and rewire my house for anything. let me ask one question. why is everybody swooning over this stupid little girl from new york? she has never done anything and she is an idiot. host: that is paul in kentucky. here is what the resolution says. the united states would upgrade all existing buildings in the united states and build new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, comfort and durability including through electrification on
7:06 am
transportation systems. the resolution calls for overhauling the transportation systems to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as is technically feasible including through investment and clean,ission -- affordable, accessible public transportation and high-speed rail. is next is -- marilyn in north carolina for those who say we need a green deal. caller: i believe we need to take into consideration climate change. we need to have a goal. taken --is cannot be done immediately. if we want to save our environment for future starttions, we have to somewhere. host: jeff is next in illinois.
7:07 am
caller: good morning. the thing i like about this even though it includes a lot of activity as it relates to making like theet zero, i do fact it is putting the country towardajectory of going net zero and hopefully, even though i know the republicans -- many people will reject this, many will support it. what i know we'll come out of this is the fact we will all be on one page, one shared vision and moving in the right direction. out of this, the net benefit is going to be jobs, doing the right thing for the right generation in terms of preserving the united states in this world. while it will not be a perfect journey, it will be a journey where we will be unified and a
7:08 am
reality. host: do you think the goals are achievable and realistic? caller: the goals are achievable doesn't -- -- a goal all of those are not smart goals . is an aspirational goal and what it is going to do is allow us as a country and a world to be on a pathway toward an aspirational goal and that is the thing i like about this. a track that is also strategicis she put this into our political conversation at this political time as we run toward 2020 20.
7:09 am
candidates running for presidency -- host: this is gloria in new york city, the line for those who say we don't need this. caller: we do not need this. she is crazy. i never heard of anything like this in my life. i am always -- almost 81 years old. i think she should be locked up and throw away the key. host: why do you think she should be locked up over this? caller: because she is crazy. her views are crazy. whatever she says is crazy. that is something out of a fantasy book. where does she get her knowledge from? what school did she go to? she doesn't have the experience of knowledge. she hasn't schappert -- suffered. she hasn't lived. host: the caller before you said she is aspirational and moves us in the right direction.
7:10 am
what are your thoughts on that? caller: no, i am not for that. host: stephen moore, a columnist with the washington times and senior fellow at the hardison foundation -- heritage foundation wrote about the green new deal in his column and writes the centerpiece of this plan is to move to 100 percent renewable energy, wind and solar power within 10 years. knowledge ofny energy use leaves this is possible. even after $150 billion of tax bill -- to get close to 100% over 10 or early years would be economically crippling with taxpayer costs that would exceed $2 trillion while displacing 10 million americans in high-paying oil and gas industries from their jobs. industry costs for home heating and industry power would likely double or triple. if you want to read his thoughts, today's washington
7:11 am
times. here are edward's thoughts from clearwater, florida. caller: they have to do something about the oceans. clearwater beach was a disaster. it was smelling and stinking. people have to be real with the climate and do their thing. they have to stop smoking cigarettes. they have to use paper straws. strawsn bring their own if they want to drink in the bars. i don't drink. i don't do drugs. everybody has to do their thing. take plastic bottles and recycle them. and world is coming to its at times. that is what i believe. live in.razy world we people are shooting kids in schools. we never had that when we were -- i was in schools. they are threatening people on the phone.
7:12 am
climate change is real. i think the lady has a good point. a lot of people have to do their work. the government over here, desantis, he is doing a good job and he is going to do the best he could on the signs. host: that is edward in florida. alexandria ocasio-cortez, the lead sponsor of this resolution. senator ed markey is the sponsor. here is what he had to say about the green new deal. [video clip] >> when we talk about a green new deal, we are talking about jobs and justice. we are talking about the greatest blue-collar job creation program in a generation. we are talking about repairing the historic repression of frontline in vulnerable communities which have borne the worst burdens of our fossil fuel economy. president roosevelt was right when he said about his new deal,
7:13 am
statesmanship and vision, my friends, require relief to all at the same time. we are talking about a historic 10 year mobilization that will mitigate climate emissions, build client resiliency -- climate resiliency. we have acted on this scale before and we must do it again. we need massive renewable energy deployment. wind, solar, offshore wind, storage batteries for renewable electricity. our energy future will not be butd in the dark of a mine, in the light of the sun. host: senator ed markey of massachusetts last week. we want to hear your thoughts on a green new deal. if you think the united states needs it, 202-748-8000 is the number. if you think we don't, 202-748-8001. in germantown, maryland, the line for those who say we do
7:14 am
not. go ahead. host: good morning, pedro. caller:caller: -- good morning, pedro. host: what is your comment about the green new deal? crazy what -- i don't think we can change everything she said like we have to build new houses, this is crazy. i don't think it is feasible. host: what is feasible? caller: i don't think that can be achievable in the space of time. host: do you think it is moving in the right direction? do you support the general goals, just not the specific plans to get there? iller: the general goal, yes,
7:15 am
support it. right now, she is saying we have houses andw high-paying jobs -- who is going to pay for all of that? amend withe have to climate change. i don't think it is feasible what she just proposed. host: in bethesda, maryland, good morning. support herally deal. the last article you mentioned on the air, i disagree with the gentleman who wrote the article. i think they are paying this guy to frighten americans and world citizens. human beings can come together and unite, it is going to save our planet. and theirce ceos
7:16 am
profits to choose more green technology. i think it is possible and as americans, if we spend a little extra care toward our future, i think it is possible. i electric car user. i look at some towns in europe, especially switzerland where they have electric charging stations throughout the city and offer incentives for people to buy electric cars. if a place in europe can do it, we can do the same thing. host: you mentioned the oil and gas industry. the economist in their latest edition focuses on oil and gas saying thatbil company is predicting that by 2025, oil and gas production will be 25% higher than it was in 2017. here is a chart to go along with it showing the expectations for global energy demand when it
7:17 am
comes to oil and gas projected by exxon mobil out to 2040. you can see the growth in that chart. darren woods, the head of exxon mobil replaced rex tillerson in wantsnes the company's -- the company profits to reach triple what it was in 2017. if you want to read more on their article, that is the cover story in the economist. brian in kansas, the line for those who say we do not need it. why not? caller: actually, i like what she is working towards. the 100% net zero and all of that, is never going to happen -- until we run out of oil. nobody is going to do it. it is going to have to be each individual person and they are just not going to do it.
7:18 am
i don't know how we are going to reach net zero. 40%.ght get 30%, also, it's a half problem. math -- ald do the plane, a jet. if we ground our debts and china flies there's, we are going to lose our commerce. i don't see how this is going to work. thing, supply and demand for one. it's a math problem, the other. i don't see how it's going to work. host: another person who doesn't see how this plan will work is house minority leader kevin mccarthy when asked about the green new deal at a press conference last week. [video clip] intoeaker pelosi calls green dream. i think it has a lot of work to go forward. i am looking to how do we keep
7:19 am
-- environment i think we can find common ground. it's interesting all the buildings and homes will have to be redone. a lot of people are talking about what do you do with animals? i think there are challenges with it even in their own -- her own conference. host: more reaction from the past weekend over the weekend. we want to hear from you on phone lines for those who support the green new deal, 202-748-8000. and those who do not, 202-748-8001. craig in amarillo, texas, supports it. why is that? caller: i don't know the specifics of the proposed green new deal, but i have long thought -- this isn't really about saving the planet, climate change, this is about money and trillions of dollars that can be made in america by americans for
7:20 am
americans if we did something revolutionary like this. law imagine that we had a that said everything in this proposed green new deal had to be manufactured in america, solar panels had to be manufactured in america and then byy had to be installed americans, that creates more jobs and imagine we put these factories making these products, these windmills and solar panels into devastated areas like west virginia where the coal mining jobs are going to go extinct, that wey, and imagine could have the intellectual technology from tesla to make new batteries and install those batteries in the homes of all .he americans -- everyone
7:21 am
i have long proposed something like this because i want the next technologies, i want those to be american owned intellectual property so whenever some other country wants to put those technologies into their houses and homes and cars, they are paying some american company to use that intellectual property. that would be another capital bonus to us. host: you say you have long proposed something like this. how far back has your interest in this gone? caller: i don't know. since al gore, whenever he did that movie. i don't recall the name of it. that is how far back i am thinking about this. all the jobs and -- and what i wanted to say about exxon mobil and their jobs. first of all, the people that
7:22 am
work in oil fields could easily thisition into installing type of technology. number two, capital will flow if there is a need and demand. if everybody, republicans and democrats in the federal government said we are going to do this for our country, we are going to do all of these proposals and we are behind it 100%, exxon mobil's capital will flow to whatever they believe in. there will be capital available. host: was it "an inconvenient truth? in 2006? caller: i believe so. imagine on every building top, on every -- start with government buildings and maybe that would drive prices down so individuals would be able to purchase it for private homes and you would have further driving down cost which makes it more affordable and you have
7:23 am
technology more widely available. imagine we had a system to retrofit cars to make them electric. host: that is craig in texas. jim in florida on the line for those who say we don't need it. caller: high object to the idea that you can reverse millions, perhaps billions of years of --lution of the earth convert this into some type of environmental water faucet you can turn on and off and achieve something in 12 years. i want your listeners to know one thing. the rotation of the earth has slowed by one hour since its beginning. rotation in the sun, if you don't think that will affect the environment. in the summer, go out and stand
7:24 am
in the sun for one hour. that is what the surface of the earth is doing. nobody mentions anything like that. host: do you think there is anything we can do now that impacts the environment? caller: there is nothing wrong with cleaning up the air and the water and having achievable goals instead of aspirational high in the sky -- pie in the sky goals. you know what is really bad? the way this was brought about is the same way cortez is objecting to in new york, subsidizing government projects to enrich the field. if she doesn't like amazon, the structure for doing these environmental programs is exactly what they are trying to do for amazon in new york city. this woman is completely off base. you cannot reverse the evolution
7:25 am
of the earth with some kind of environmental water faucet, it just doesn't work. host: that is jim in florida. here is how that 14 page resolution and -- ends. alexandra ocasio-cortez writes the goal should be providing all with adequate housing, economic security, clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food and access to nature. you can find the resolution on her website. we are asking on facebook, a poll if you think the united states needs a green new deal. almost 6000 people have responded. 45% saying yes, 55% saying no. most of the leading democratic in 2020es for president have signed the green new deal. here's a few tweets, kiersten gillibrand on twitter from last week, a green new deal is
7:26 am
ambitious, bold, and i am cosponsoring this mission because it is the exact kind of action it will take to conquer the biggest threat of our lifetime. cory booker expected to be one of those lead contenders saying the hard truth is climate change has imperiled our planet. -- create the jobs of the future. we can do this. elizabeth warren saying if we want to live in a world with clean air and water, we have to take action to combat climate change. i am proud to join alexandra ocasio-cortez and senator markey to fight for our planet and our kids' future. elizabeth warren entered the presidential race formerly -- formally over the weekend. here is the headline off of yesterday from minnesota, senator says she is running in 2020 and that senator is amy klobuchar of minnesota.
7:27 am
usa today describing the scene in minnesota when she made her announcement as the snow came down and temperatures hovered in the high teens, she announced i stand before you as the granddaughter of an iron or minor and daughter of a teacher and newspaperman. . she was at boom island park on the shores of the mississippi river. it was dickstein degrees fahrenheit around the time she made her announcement and felt like seven degrees with the wind chill. that was the scene yesterday. if you want to watch it, go to our website and see it in its entirety. michael is next in texas, good morning. little bitill give a of my background. i am 91 years old and i drive a nissan leaf all electric. would love a tesla, but cannot afford it. i believe we need this because earth is notnot --
7:28 am
going to die, but unless we have a sustainable planet for human life, humans are going to disappear. people seem to forget we are part of the natural world just as the deer that wander through my yard every morning and evening. we need clean water, we need clean air. also -- i also rainwater harvest and i think all of us need to do that. i need -- read a lot of technical news, a number of articles, i read them all and if people would do that, they realize the fastest growing area for jobs is renewable energy with wind technology and solar and all of the different activities and industries that energy support renewable .
7:29 am
jobs are expanding. we areidiculous to think going to go back to coal or keep on with oil with all the damage it does. you are seeing the bp ads advertising they are going to produce a charger faster than what we have now. oil companies realize this, but the fossil flu -- the fossil fuel companies, but they will hang on as much as they can, get as much money as they can, they are on their way out. host: can i ask you on that point, stephen moore in the column we referenced noted some 10 million high-paying american oil and gas jobs that would be displaced if the green new deal went into effect. what do you think should happen to those folks? caller: they can train in technology. not are not dumb, they are stupid.
7:30 am
there are lots of classes going around. we are in the new revolution. we are in the age of electricity and digitalization and that is where these people -- the jobs are going, where the younger people are going. just these young people who realize this -- there are lots of us that are my age oilunderstand this the big companies, fossil fuel companies for years.ubsidized in many cases, they don't pay taxes and they get rebates, so don't tell me you cannot .ubsidized clean energy we have been subsidizing fossil fuels for many, many years. host: christopher is next, tallahassee, florida, the line for those who say we don't need to green new deal. why not? caller: i think we should
7:31 am
incentivize green energy, i think we should. i don't know if the right way of going about it is spending a couple trillion dollars or having the government spend on it. the government spent a couple million dollars on the website for health care and that did not even work. host: what would be the right way of doing it? caller: back to the subject. i believe 10 years from now, you will probably be able to buy a car for $10,000 that can go $500 on a full charge. i think the right way is maybe incentivizing businesses to go more green and putting investments into companies like tesla and such. i think there should be an investment into green. we should protect the earth for the future. the earth needs a good lawyer. i think we have to be careful. we should not just spend our money. -- technologyss
7:32 am
is getting better and better every year. i think we should incentivize it, but we have to be careful spending money we don't have. host: that is christopher in florida and this is richard in new york. caller: good morning. i am calling with my view for a green new deal because when i was in high school, 41 years ago, there were countries coming up with high-speed trains and i was thinking to this day that there are no trains in our train system and our training system isn't working properly. we live in the richest country in the world and our bridges don't operate correctly. that would be a good place to invest. i think it would help a lot of gases, reduce greenhouse
7:33 am
and also, i think we need to transition into the green new deal because other countries have been going that way for a while. china used to produce a lot of emissions and they could not breathe and now they are turning to solar power trying to get the solar power business away from us. even when i am out bicycling, i noticed farmers today are using wind power and solar power. you are not going to avoid it, even if we don't go that way, we will be left behind because other countries are going that direction. our infrastructure is so far --ind, talk to any engineer we are not keeping up with our infrastructure. itave all this talk about being the leaders in the world, but we don't look like the leaders. countries are leaving us the
7:34 am
in a lot of engineering areas and other areas that are vital for national security and vital for the environment. i think we really have to pay attention because there is a lot -- china, russia are going very high tech. we are going to be left behind dealing with very serious national security issues. host: that is richard in new york. we appreciate your call. those who think we do need a green new deal, 202-748-8000. those who think we do not, 202-748-8001. 7:30.just after the house will be in at noon today. to elesident is headed paso to hold a rally to talk about his border priorities and we are just days away from that friday deadline for another potential government shutdown unless a deal is reached to keep the government open. talks on border security and on that deal have stalled, that is
7:35 am
the headline in the front page lead story in the wall street journal. several other stories focusing on the state of those negotiations, the possibility of a second government shutdown looms that the end of this week. we will talk about the state of the negotiations, looking at the week ahead and we will be joined by mike lillis, john bennett of roll call will be here to take your questions and let you know where that stands and where it might be going in the days ahead. we mentioned this story, congress losing a longtime congressman, congressman walter jones, who built a record of maverick conservatism died at the age of 76. he was known on capitol hill for having voted for the 2000 two resolution authorizing the war in iraq and pushed the torn freedom fries as a statement of -- term "freedom fries."
7:36 am
his military heavy district was part of his change of heart and his office had a wall of photos war onnes killed in the terrorism. mr. jones was a legacy in congress following in the footsteps of his father, who represented the eastern north carolina district for 20 six years. his son ran as a democrat, but lost and switched parties and ran again, winning office. he died yesterday. that is the flag over the united states capitol. it was lowered last week after the death of congressman john dingell. it will remain lowered until the longest-serving congressman's internment. back to your phone calls as we discussed the green new deal. glenn in lancaster, california, thinks we don't need it. why not? caller: i wish you would quit and here isface war
7:37 am
what ocasio-cortez should say. i need to educate myself. hydroelectric. what about hydroelectric. we have canals and aqueducts all over the place. the water is flowing. that is infrastructure already there and we don't need to tear our land up putting solar panels everywhere. why don't you show all the hydroelectric dams and canals and that is the cheapest energy. it's already in place and show all the land is being destroyed with solar panels everywhere 10t are only good for 8 to years before they leak toxic waste into the ground, which isn't anything green. we could put the power lines underground so they don't cause
7:38 am
fires because they don't repair them and destroy our lands in another way. god bless donald trump and god bless america. host: kenneth is next in upper marble, maryland, the line for those who say we do need it. say old world to thinking does not only affect congress, it affects our nation. i am talking about the ancient sots, the way we are doing -- that the way we are doing things is the best way. renewable energy, one energy source that is never mentioned is biofuel. it delivers the same, if not better power to our combustion engines as anything else. the 10 year plan to switch to the green new deal might be a
7:39 am
little steep. maybe 15, maybe 20. technology allows us to create fuels from bio, algae. that can be done not only by big corporations already doing science to perfect that. but theeady possible, fuel, the oil industry -- they are the ones that hold back progress and that type of thinking the lady earlier talked about and the other gentleman talked about, that type of thinking is what keeps us oppressed, down, keeps us from progressing further into the future. thele need to look at science before they start rattling off about what doesn't work and what cannot work. host: you said it is more likely in a 20 year window as opposed
7:40 am
to a 10 year window. do you think the proposal she laid out is realistic? caller: no. a goal andoot for work to achieve it. i am sure she doesn't think, in reality, that it can happen in 10 years. a lot can be done in 10 years. if all the powers that be are going for that one goal. solar and wind and all of that, renewable, we already have infrastructure in place. create fuel and power sources that blend with that. biofuels is one of them. you might not be able to replace it isor airplanes because a higher octane, but the cars, trucks, replace diesel and fuels to
7:41 am
.urvey second purpose host: we promised to read through parts of the green new deal. we have picked out a few of the sections. here is more on some of the plans and goals for the green new deal, ensuring the green new deal creates high quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages. offers training and advanced opportunities and guarantees weight and benefit parity for workers affected by transitions in industries, guaranteeing a job with a family sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security to all people strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to unionize, collectively bargain -- strengthening and enforcing labor workplace health and antidiscrimination and standards across all employers,
7:42 am
industries, and sectors and enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with labor and environmental protections. just some of the goals laid out in the green new deal. we are asking you if you think the united states need to green new deal. in kansas, thinks we do not. why not? caller: hello? green new deal is absolutely so wrong. we have so many wind charges here in kansas and i find it a little strange we are not hearing on a regular basis on at least i have not heard how these are saving us massive amounts of money. to think the government had to subsidize those windmill businesses to get them into
7:43 am
operation shows it is not a profitable business or people would have invested in it and built them themselves. we've got several individuals and businesses that have put up tryvidual wind charges to and save money. it became so expensive to repair them, but they have had to stop using them. what is going to happen with all these windmills when the wind charges quit working and we have to spend a massive amount of money to fix them? i don't know what they are saving us, i have not heard. i have -- i am not informed, that is just my view. host: you mentioned you are concerned about the government spending money to help stand up the wind industry, the wind energy sector. do you think there should be
7:44 am
subsidies and gas breaks for the oil and gas industry? need --i do believe we i don't hear you. host: you believe we need cheaper energy? caller: i believe we need cheaper energy. our electricity and stuff is plenty high. whatever we can do if we need to industry, -- iil don't know how much they are being subsidized by -- but i do want cheaper energy. andn't think wind chargers all of that is going to help us any as far as the cost. i don't think in the long run -- some of the other things like the cows, we've got thousands of cows in kansas. it is ridiculous on its face that you say what in the world
7:45 am
are they thinking about? paying people just because they don't want to work is ridiculous. host: the last two things you bring up, the cows and paying people not to work not included in the final version of the therenew deal although was some discussion about drafts of the green new deal that were released and concerns about possibly some fake versions being circulated around. tweetedia ocasio-cortez her concerns about misinformation about what is in the final proposal over the weekend saying there are multiple doctor degree new deal resolutions and frequent asked questions floating around. there was a draft version that got uploaded and taken down to her own website and there is a draft version out there. the real one is the submitted
7:46 am
resolution, the 14 page document we have been talking about this morning. it's tony in colorado, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking the call. i am a big proponent of a green new deal of some kind. it's not the exact details in the plan as this it -- as it is moving us in the right direction. for months, this issue has gone around and this is like the argument around globalism. climate change and globalism are two factors that are here to stay. it's like saying i am against gravity. while we sit here and debate whether it is real, the chinese are investing and you had a caller who started into this area, but more reiterating. the chinese have recognized this
7:47 am
is going to be absolutely the largest industry in the world by 2050 and they are putting in tons of money that they want to own that industry like we owned the auto industry in the 1900s. even though they are burning coal and they will have to transition away just like we do, they are going all in on this industry saying they will have a larger middle class then we have total population in the united states just from this industry. one final point, today we are debating this. if you went back 120 years and you were reading the newspapers and there was -- electricity was coming of age, there were people arguing we should stay in kerosene lamps because that industry wanted to be protected. obviously, we did not fight off electricity. no matter how much we argue, this industry is coming,
7:48 am
regardless of the side you are on. the question is do we want to lead it or hand this industry to the chinese? host: tony in denver, colorado. about 20 minutes left in this segment and we will turn to the week ahead in washington and the negotiations over border security and federal funding. the clock ticking on that federal funding deadline. a potential other government shutdown if no deal is reached. we will talk about that with our panel, mike lillis, john bennett. we mentioned some of the 20 presidential contenders who joined the race over the weekend. one of them, amy klobuchar and the wall street journal writes about her and this issue of the .reen new deal the editorial board calls her a minnesota pragmatist.
7:49 am
one question is how farm's klobuchar will go to raise her profile. she cosponsored the senate resolution on a green new deal running on a pledge to eliminate fossil fuels. mr. trump can just -- only hope she could lose the strongest argument for her demo -- candidacy. here is senator klobuchar yesterday from her announcement in minnesota. [video clip] >> today, on an island in the middle of the mighty mississippi , in our nation's heartland, at a time when we -- we must heal the heart of our democracy and renew our commitment to the common good, i stand before you as the granddaughter of an iron or minor and the daughter of a teacher and a newspaperman, as the first woman elected to the
7:50 am
united states senate from the state of minnesota, to announce my candidacy for president of the united states. [cheers and applause] i am running for this job for every person that wants their work recognized and rewarded. i am running for every parent who wants a better world for their kids. i am running for every student who wants a good education, for every senior who wants affordable prescription drugs, for every worker, farmer, dreamer, and builder.
7:51 am
i am running for every american. i am running for you. i promise you this, as your president, i will look you in the eye. i will tell you what i think. i will focus on getting things done. that is what i have done my whole life and no matter what, i will leave from the heart. watch thatu want to announcement, you can do so on our website. you can watch elizabeth warren's former announcement from over this weekend on saturday, all available on our website to you. taking your calls with less than 10 minutes left, asking if you think of the united states needs a green new deal. colin has been waiting, thinks we do. caller: it is actually alan.
7:52 am
in hawaii, we are a state that is already mandated 100% renewables by 2045, which has been over a decade. i think we have had that in place under our renewable portfolio standard there it far as the green deal, i think it is a really good idea. i don't know if the timeframe is going to work and i know it will get battled around anyhow. people can do research on it. i think some of the items that were described will probably be eliminated in terms of the timeframe. solar capacity will have to increase massively. right now, i think about three and a half percent -- 3.5% of u.s. energy is solar. 60%island of kawai is like
7:53 am
solar already. it's possible, but it will take a lot of incentives. we have to extend the federal investment tax credit. that is important because it's about to phase down next year. even though it can be still affordable in some markets without that incentive, it is going to become very expensive. host: you talk about something that might not be feasible in 10 years or beyond. one of the parts of proposal --t has come under scrutiny building new buildings to build --er efficiency, including through electrification. do you think that is something possible in the 10 year window? caller: in hawaii, they mandated solar for all new construction and it started right away.
7:54 am
the way the federal government does these things. in a lot of jurisdictions, any time you go for a building permit, you have to be compliant. is? ? it possible i think if it is 8 -- is it possible? whitten --is a well written bill. if they want to fix something, they will have to add the improvements that are mandated. love it.actors will as far as large-scale solar versus small-scale solar, as far as the weatherization and efficiency, these things are long overdue. with are coming down and the right understanding of incentives and if they continue -- quite possible. host: you talk about the
7:55 am
transition happening now in hawaii, one of the columns we stephen moore talked about his concern about 10 million workers in high-paying oil and gas jobs who would be out of jobs. can you talk about whether we have seen the transition impact in hawaii on a state level? you study the market in hawaii, it has been a firestorm. there were a lot of things that were done that even the renewable people were not happy about. going to be lots of storage. ways to store power made from renewables. are what you call firm energy. that energy, you can use it when you need it, you can turn it on and off. with renewables like solar --
7:56 am
solar and wind, it requires battery storage or some type of storage. that whole transition is probably the most expensive transition. solar is very expensive compared to wind. cost of solar manufacturing goes down, that will become much more effective. fuel, oilthe liquid and gas, that is an inevitable factor. i don't think they are going to phase out oil in 10 years. host: what kind of work are you in in hawaii? caller: i do solar project facilitation of all scales from residential to whatever. host: how long have you been doing that? caller: decades. host: appreciate the call this morning from hawaii and getting up. in greenberg, kentucky, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead.
7:57 am
caller: where do i start? the first thing i want to say is so all politicians lie to us and we know this, i would always look at the intent of their legislation. it's always important to look at the intent. oftentimes, the title of the bill has nothing to do with the content. i say look at the intent because i think there is intention behind this to create oppressed people. if there is a noncompliant from a citizen or you cannot opt out, you would drive that person off of land by virtue of noncompliance. i think you need to look at intention and what is behind all this. host: to what end? you think this is a federal power grab, is what you are saying? caller: i think this is similar
7:58 am
to what we did in vietnam in agent orange. in order to drive the viet cong into the city, we sprayed them and they would go into the city and the countryside was left. host: i don't follow the connection to a piece of legislation about energy in the future. caller: yeah, because if you are noncompliant, what happens to you? think in terms of the smart meter. there is no opt out of the smart meter. host: this is ted in oregon, good morning. caller: i want to start the conversation by saying jimmy carter had solar panels on the white house. do you remember that? my job for decades, i was a journey man plumber and people they areto realize already energy compliant. if they buy a new toilet, it
7:59 am
on 1 --lush -- lfushing they will be flushing on 1.18 gallons. a new faucet will deliver a gallon per minute. we are already doing it. if you want to go and change a light fixture, it is going to be led, you cannot buy anything else. i just wonder what the fervor is about. and most importantly, electrical code, plumbing code, building code, they tell what is going to happen. a boiler that ran 100 years ago ran on coal. 50 years ago, they ran on fuel oil. natural gas. on
8:00 am
they used to be the size of a locomotive. now, they are the size of a suitcase. just pay attention. host: that is our last caller in this first segment of "washington journal." up next, a roundtable discussion on the week ahead in washington. we will be joined by john bennett and mike lillis. later in our weekly your money segment, we talk about the future of social security with mark miller. ♪ >> tonight on "the communicators," from the state of the net conference in washington, d.c., we will discuss internet regulations and monitoring with federal trade commission or rebecca stoll -- rebecca stoll --
8:01 am
rebecca slaughter and neil chilson. >> the fcc has rulemaking authority that is much more expensive than the ftc. they can say to industry here is the rules of the road, this is how you have to -- here's how you treat traffic over the internet. we just do not have the ability to do that across the board when it comes to consumer protection issues. we have much more limited rulemaking authority. right now, we have sector specific laws that will check some data some of the time, but data is not housed in sector specific silos anymore. >> people mean so many different things when they talk about privacy that it is hard to see how congress does anything that is specific. because people have not yet agreed on what the problem is. i think there is a lot of areas people could agree on, that these are the type of injuries we are trying to stop consumers
8:02 am
from suffering. i think we could get there. but right now, the conversation is very vague. it talks about privacy as a general idea. people mean really different things when they talk about privacy. communicators" at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. there are nearly 100 new members of the house this year. representative anthony gonzalez was a football star at ohio state before the indianapolis colts drafted him in 2007. after injuries cut short his professional football career, representative gonzales earned businesst stanford school. he is the first latino elected to ohio's congressional delegation. representative carol miller served over a decade in the state house before voters in west virginia elected her to
8:03 am
congress. she is the daughter of former congressman samuel devine, whose seat would later be filled by john kasich. congressman michael guest was a local prosecutor in mississippi for nearly 25 years. schoollso a sunday teacher at his local baptist church. representative david sharon and his brother opened a small -- david sharon -- david trone and his brother opened a small liquor store. the company moved to maryland and has become the largest independent fine wine retailer in the country. and washington's eighth district elected representative kim schrier, the only female doctor in congress. new congress, new leaders. watch it all on c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: each week when congress is
8:04 am
in session, we like to take the time to look at the week ahead did we do it today with john bennett of roll call and mike lillis of "the hill." the clock is ticking on negotiations. where do they stand? guest: it looks like we are in a fine mess again. there was a lot of optimism that negotiations would continue going into the weekend and that there would be a deal has to out in time to get it through the house and senate and get it to the president's desk to avert a shut down that would happen saturday at midnight. yesterday, it seems things just fell apart. except not over the issue we thought they would fall apart over. it was all the attention over the wall and trump asking for 5.7 billion and -- 5.7 billion dollars and democrats saying nothing. and yesterday, it seemed to deteriorate over the number of detention beds, which is a totally different issue, although they had been talking about it last week. host: talk about the history of
8:05 am
that issue and how it is now front and center. guest: this is an enforcement issue that the republicans and trump had said all along. we need interior enforcement. it is divorced from the border security deal, which makes it a little nuanced and difficult understand. there is border security in the wall and then there is interior enforcement. what democrats said over the weekend in our final deal is we are not going to accept more than 16,500 detention beds that get filled by interior enforcement, never mind what happens out the border. right now, there are about 14,000 attention be -- detention leaving 2500 for whoever was at the border. cap was a nonstarter for richard shelby, top negotiator for the republicans, and trump who said customs enforcement needs to have the discretion to fill their beds with whoever they want.
8:06 am
democrats say no. if we put a cap on it, 16,500, that means i.c.e. would just go after the criminals, which is what they want, incentive indiscriminately going against whoever they want. the border wall, and now the detention bed issue completes things further. host: the view from the white house on this detention bed issue moving to center stage and what will happen from here like mike said -- from here. guest: like mike said, republicans are against this detention bed cap, and the white house is with them. we will see where the wiggle room now is. do they negotiate the number to get enough democratic votes and support here? i think that is where it will go. these talks were always going to
8:07 am
stall before friday. i thought it may happen late last week. they managed to surprise me and make it into sunday morning before talks stalled. stalling is not about thing. stalling can create pressures, both internally and from both the conservative base and the move thesee that things along. so stalling is not always bad. it creates a new sense of urgency sometimes. i would suggest the talks are going to get back on track, the white house will be somewhat involved, and i am sure we will have more stalling before the end of the week. maybe what we see by friday is they agree to just do a clean continuing resolution to keep these agencies open while they continue to talk about the wall and the bed issue. we will hear from the president several times this week, including tonight in el paso, holding one of his campaign rallies.
8:08 am
even if lawmakers and the white house staff can start talking again today, everyone will be watching tonight at 9:00 eastern. host: john bennett, the story in roll call, trump revives campaign style rallies in the heart of beto country. take us through his schedule as we know it. guest: the president is not doing anything else in el paso, little surprisingly, except this rally. he may meet with supporters backstage, but he went during the recent partial government shutdown to the border. he got a briefing. he toured some border area. there was the image with the helicopter flying over and him saluting, but he is not doing anything like that. he is not leaving washington until probably 4:00. usually runs about 20 minutes late. he is going straight there for the rally. i talked to a white house
8:09 am
official over the weekend -- they expect the boss will focus iftly on the border issue, you will make a big pitch tonight on the wall. controversialvery about el paso. he says when a border barrier went up there, crime and immigration numbers went down. fbi data and other data suggests the crime rate started falling two years before that barrier in el paso went out. at the same time he is on the stage in el paso, beto o'rourke, who gave republican senator ted cruz a real run for his money in november in the midterms, he will hold a counter rally. this will be an early 2020 snapshot. i expect cable news to have both men on the screen and separate -- in separate boxes. not see any reason to think the president will resist taking a couple shots at mr. over.
8:10 am
-- mr. o'rourke. host: the republican mayor of el paso has commented in "usa today," talking about the debate of the city and immigration. contrary of what you may see or hear, our relationship with mexico has ushered in a new era of economic growth. i implore policy visors from the federal government to talk with our residents, you at our restaurants, walk our streets. you will find our city is safe. op-ed innt to read the "usa today" ahead of the president's trip. we are talking about the week ahead of john bennett and mike lillis. you can join the discussion. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002.
8:11 am
ise lillis, as the president in el paso, we assume negotiations will continue in some form. one of the key figures, in the negotiations, senator richard shelby. he was on fox news sunday. [video clip] >> i think talks have stalled right now. i am hoping we can get off the dime later today or early this morning. we have some problems with the ,emocrats dealing with i.c.e. that is detaining criminals that come into the u.s.. they want a cap on them. we don't want a cap on that. jon tester says we do not have a recent number on the barrier yet, but we hope we can get there. we hope to get fluid again and start movement. host: mike lillis, take us through the meeting schedule. where are these negotiations taking place? guest: right now, i do not think
8:12 am
there are any meetings planned at all, especially with the president heading to texas. their world certainly the staff meetings. all of that is probably happening this morning and will happen through the day and week. when they passed the three week c.r. a few weeks back and gave himself until february 15, we were scratching our heads. whether they give themselves three days or three weeks, this always goes right up until the end, to the line. it is because of the pressures that both parties are facing from their base. they have to show they are fighting the good fight. if they cave to early, then they did just that -- cave. they have to go in with a hard line up until the end. and then they have a 72 hour rule in the house to pass bills, and the senate has all of these different procedures that can draw out debate for days and days. but when they want to pass something, they can do it just like that. that is what they did a couple weeks ago with the c.r.
8:13 am
both chambers came to within agreement, and that both chambers came to an agreement, and -- to anhambers came agreement, and the government was back open within hours. there is no telling what the president will do, but when the sides of want to come together, they can come together quickly. richard shelby put the odds at 50-50 that there will be a deal. that is not bad in washington. host: give us a schedule on the vote on the president's attorney general nominee, william barr. guest: senator mitch mcconnell, -- republican leader in the senate, teed up a vote tomorrow. that sets up the stage for his confirmation later in the week. right now, there's only one democrat who has said he will support him. so it looks like it will be an easy confirmation vote. he has not lost any republicans
8:14 am
at this point. he is experienced. he was attorney general under george bush 41. he is conservative, and democrats do not like his policy positions, but for the most part, it is just a partisan fight. we still do not know what senator manchin and a couple more moderate democrats will do, but it does not look like he is threatened. host: the white house looks confident at this point? guest: yeah. they would like to pick off manchin or one or two others. they always want to get as many votes for these nominees, especially something like attorney general, especially given matthew whitaker's controversial testimony last week before the house judiciary committee. they want this to look as bipartisan as they can, even if it is just three or four .emocrats and expect the president server tok -- expect the president
8:15 am
go back to us virginia and places like this and to tweet about joe manchin, who he likes a lot. i would expect to see attorney house, barr at the white either in the oval office or, weather permitting, in the rose garden this week with a ceremony with the president. host: plenty more to talk about. but let's take your calls. ed from georgia, republican. caller: good morning. what i do not understand is all of the politicians have all of these grandiose ideas, things they want to do, but we have a $21 trillion debt, and nobody seems to care about that. nobody talks about how we will reduce it. when they talk about that for us, then we can talk about their other crazy ideas. but they got to get rid of this debt.
8:16 am
it is just bleeding us. host: mike lillis on where debt and deficit reductions have fallen in these conversations. guest: it is funny -- it has become such a political issue. it is not even a partisan issue. it is just political. it is the party that has power tends to suddenly not care about debt, and when they are out of power, than they really care about that. you saw this -- the height of this was in 2010, when president obama was passing the economic stimulus bill. all of these things were happening, and paul ryan and john boehner and the republican house members who were then in the minority were screaming bloody murder and saying it was an existential threat to democracy and were passing all of these things to rein in the debt. and when they got power, suddenly everything changed and the debt was not important at all. as a tax bill just showed you, they just passed a tax bill that
8:17 am
allowed $1.5 trillion added to the debt. host: one guy who always worried about the debt and deficits is walter jones. died yesterday. the congressman from north carolina, a 24 a veteran of capitol hill. what will your member about walter jones? guest: he was fascinating. he was really his own person. toryone up here one -- wants think they think on their own and will just represent their constituents, but walter jones truly was that guy. he was the guy, to the pain and frustration and detriment of his own leadership, he would go to the courthouse and call for the removal of troops from iraq, no explicite was congressional authorization for that at a time when it was really making george w. bush bad.
8:18 am
walter jones, a libertarian leaning republican, would join up with some very libertarian leaning democrats, sort of in the bernie sanders mold you see nowadays. he was a thorn in the side of his own leadership. they hated it at the time. of course now, everybody is praising that as a very singular minded -- host: you covered him? guest: i cover defense and national security issues on the hill for years. congressman jones was in line for it. he stayed on the armed services committee, because he wanted one of several subcommittee chairmanships. but when his time came and he had hisority, he opposition to the iraq war had so frustrated and angered republican leadership in the bush white house that they blocked him from ever getting one of those subcommittee gavels . he was a thorn in the side of his leadership, and they
8:19 am
punished him for it. host: we want you to join in on this conversation. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. but before we leave this discussion about members who have passed recently, i also want to ask about john dingell and your coverage of john dingell. dingell wasessman very respect did and was one of those old-school lawmakers. i never covered him. mike might have. very saw we saw a lot of moving statements, personal statements, from republicans and democrats, especially over the weekend. he penned an op-ed -- well, he did not pen it, he dictated it
8:20 am
criticized, where he the president, where he is using the bully pulpit of the office to promote some controversial to press on racial and elements of our society. so even in his final days, he was speaking out. host: mike lillis? guest: you cannot say too much about john dingell. he was one of the giants of the institution. that is almost saying too little. he was here 50 years, the longest serving member of either chamber. he was around for some very historic votes. he was around for the passage of medicare, the creation of the environmental protection agency a hand in obamacare, the clean air act.
8:21 am
you name and instrumental law and he last 50 years, was part of it. he inherited the seat from his father, and now his wife is in it. the legacy lives on. for all of his liberal bona fides, he was a guy who, every year, in the first week, would introduce medicare for all. john dingell was the guy who used to introduce that bill every year. inherited that tradition from his father as well. i am almost positive about that. but he also represented the automakers in dearborn, michigan. for that reason, that he knew how to wield the gavel. that was a time when legislation was built out of committees and not leadership offices. he knew how to wield power. but in 2008, when barack obama
8:22 am
won the presidency, henry waxman from california said i am not going to let john dingell have a hand over fuel efficiency standards, because he is just going to protect the auto industries. tacit support from nancy pelosi at the time, came in and knocked him off the energy and commerce committee. no one really saw that coming. a guy quite a fall for who wielded power. since then, he had kinda fallen off. he was still respected and wrote legislation, had a voice in left inng, but when he 2014, he said this place is falling apart, it is to partisan , and i fear for the institution that i love. this he will be buried week. we know details about the funeral? guest: we do. there will be two services, one in michigan first and then here
8:23 am
in washington. hisspeakers speak to bipartisan outreach and the attraction both sides had. , iis biden and fred upton think, in the michigan one. then president clinton and former speaker john boehner here in washington. bipartisan voices. he will be buried in arlington. host: plenty of callers waiting period joseph is in new jersey, independent. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: i have two questions. basically,order, congress, they will not give him any money for the border wall. do i believe they should be here? i do not know. some have legitimate reasons and some do not. if they will not give money for the border wall, congress, here is what i know.
8:24 am
they are representatives. they go to washington. but they are called state representatives. they represent their state. since they are not actually, i believe, fellow employees, does the president have to pay their salary? can he say no, you will have to get it from your state, the money for the border wall? and two -- host: let's take that one up. federalhe members are employees. they are elected by their constituents, but they are paid by federal taxpayer dollars. of all the talk of the shutdown, that peace is not part of this shutdown talks. they are paid through october, no matter what the president wanted to do. host: the legislative branch appropriations bill, although some members have talked about perhaps five member paid to future shutdowns, that members would not get paid if another shutdown happened. guest: that is right. a number of bills say that if we
8:25 am
are the one so dysfunctional that we cannot keep certain parts of the government open, why should we continue to get paid through the process? i do not know if there is appetite among party leaders in either chamber to pass them, but it is good to take home to constituents. in new jersey, good morning. caller: i am calling in regards to the president. he wants to have things done with the wall. it is so important we have the wall, that people come in the way they should, through legal representation. built andll not being democrats not giving him permission to have the funding, i really hope that, by the end of the week, things are changed. that nancy pelosi and the team get together with the president
8:26 am
and give him money for the wall. it is very important for the united states stand with our president and have that wall built. i thank you for listening to me. have a great day. host: john bennett. guest: both of the last two callers have said that the democrat will not give the president any money for the wall. that appears to be over. agreedder committee has to somewhere between 1.3 billion dollars and $1.2 billion. they are hung up where in the middle they may be able to meet. the president will not like that p he will not love a bill that had $1.75 billion for the wall. host: and that money can go to a concrete wall, if border experts decide they need? guest: that is what it is looking for petey can use that for steel slats, concrete, whatever department of homeland
8:27 am
security experts want. deal, ahen there's a long-term deal, there will be border barrier funds. democrats have given grand there appear the president would then use a national emergency to unlock pentagon funds that he would try to shift into the border wall program. that is where we expect democratic lawmakers and pro-immigrant groups to immediately file lawsuits and tried to block him from moving that money around. it looks like if there is a deal, looks like maybe $2 billion, maybe not that much, and the president would act on his own. so it is how much money and will the president signed that bill, and will he be comfortable signing that, knowing it will be tied up in court. host: from texas, a democrat. caller: good morning. i am concerning -- calling
8:28 am
concerning representative walter jones and how the guys were talking about the war in iraq and how he was a fighter and a republican. i want to know how is it that they resisted him or kept him from going forward? resistanceot about and things going on now. if the republicans do not agree with you, how do they go about keeping you from going forward? now, you say he did something that was right, and he is acknowledged for it now, but why was he not acknowledged before? keepdid republicans do to him from being acknowledged? guest: very good question. republican leadership has things that has control over things like subcommittee gavels.
8:29 am
to get was in line subcommittee gavel, republican leadership said no way. you can keep power from them that way. when walter jones was writing legislation, you can not vote on those bills. there is a way to keep those guys in a corner when they are not towing the party line. 2006,as a time, 2005 and things were going downhill in iraq, but republicans 18 to be supportive of their president, their ally in the white house. it was all hands on deck thing, and here was walter jones making noise. it made them look bad, splintered. and the committee gavel thing was really the show of force from the republican leadership at the time. guest: absolutely. i can remember the annual pentagon policy bill and what happened then is a member then on thateven more dug in
8:30 am
position, he is frustrated with leadership, and a guy like walter jones does not really hold back. if you propose amendments in these committee markups for these policy bills, would usually then aligned with the far left. in national security, at least on the surface, it appears to be an odd coalition of people on the right and left, the libertarians and the really liberal wing of the democrats. he would join with them on amendments, and boy the republican leadership on the committees would make sure those went down and went down hard. guest: you just mentioned the house this week will vote on a bill similar to what walter jones may have written. it is to get u.s. forces out of yemen. the saudi war on yemen. a lot of civilian casualties. it is getting nasty over there. the senate passed it in
8:31 am
december. the house will pass and send it back to that senate p of this may be their first bill that the president has to veto in his tenure at the white house. host: if we get as far down that line as a veto, where do we stand on overriding that? guest: i do not know that anybody has done the math on that. the senate vote in december was 58, i think. they would need two thirds, 67. we will see. next,maggie is up georgette, republican. go ahead. georgia, republican. go ahead. caller: why are the immigrants doing this? are they trying to kill seniors by draining social security? spent onon now border security, all of the
8:32 am
illegals coming in? what about the american people. the poor people working to get this money, and they keep taking this money. this is our money, not theirs to play with. we need a wall. host: the president is going to el paso and is expected to talk about these issues. what do you want the president to say? killingapproving babies, what is it, the elderly next? is this their way of the populating? host: that was maggie in georgia. john bennett on some of the sentiments she brought up? guest: i think the president will talk about late term abortion. the president is a big consumer -- she reads all the newspapers, has always done this. he read the "times" and "post" and "daily news" when he was a
8:33 am
businessman in new york. if this issue remains a front burner, -- headlines, from the the bill in virginia, if nothing happens there, then maybe the president, it drifts from his mind and it is not one of his 2020 issues. then again, the president is very adept -- and democratic strategists tell me all the time they underestimated him in 2016. they say they will not do it again. they are watching closely how he uses things like late-term abortion. and on the border wall, what the caller was getting at is a little different version of what the president says -- a sharper elbow from maggie. the president alludes to this, that democrats want to raid
8:34 am
things like social security and will spend on illegals. he will probably say a version of this -- that democrats want to spend benefits on undocumented illegal immigrants and take things like social security from the elderly. host: a larger discussion on social security coming up at 9:00. we will spend a half hour on it with mark miller, a reuters columnist. we will talk about the future of social security on our weekly your money segment. and on the president's statements tonight, you can watch it here on c-span. officially called the president's make america great again from el paso on c-span 2. as well. you can listen on the free c-span radio app. susan is waiting, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. had a couple of quick questions
8:35 am
for you with republicans complaining about the debt and everything, and then wanting to , wanting to money use taxpayers like they are an atm machine, why are you not talking about employers like donald trump hiring illegals? they are not coming across the border to terrorize us, they are coming for the jobs. but why are they not sticking to the laws? go after the employer's and fine -- employers and fine them for hiring employees without permits to work. if we went after the source, we would not have people running across the border, unless they were running for some of the people who are being terrorized and murdered in their countries.
8:36 am
guest: a good question. the answer is it is obviously a big issue this week because of all of the headlines surrounding donald trump's golf course and the number of the employees who were undocumented for many years . a story that raised a lot of eyebrows and the "washington post." there were a lot of people who say why are we so focused on the wall, the real deterrent would be something called e-verify. employer, im an have to run through a federal database to make sure that you are here legally. even pro trump anti-immigration groups say that would be the better deterrent. we talked to one of those groups in december, when there was that big flareup in the oval office with trump and pelosi and charles schumer, and all of that
8:37 am
was over the wall. it made for great tv, of course. advocatesti-immigrant we were talking to said i would give my right arm if we were talking about e-verify now, because that is a deterrent. people will get in here, but if they cannot get hired, there is no reason for them to come. guest: and another reason so much attention gets put on the wall is that for, it is not just the wall. the president and his folks and republican lawmakers are right when they say democrats have supported border structures -- call them what you will, slats,, steel sltas -- they have supported funding for that, and in big numbers. the reason we talk about the wall and the focus is on that is because democrats are coupling trump's talk into thousand 16 of a big concrete, reinforced -- in concrete,big,
8:38 am
hisforced with rebar with anti-migration stands, with a call in moral. so it is not just the wall for democrats. it is a combination of the two. and they do not want the wall as a symbol of this far right and timing gratian policy that the president has adopted. trying to keep this simple -- simple from going up -- trying to keep the symbol from going up. host: and we have this tweet -- mexico has not paid for the wall yet. left with johns bennett and mike lillis. talking about a busy week ahead. milton, kentucky, democrat. caller: good morning.
8:39 am
good show. i am a third-generation democrat. i am 72. my parents were democrats. my grandparents on both sides were democrats. i want to ask either of you are there any real democrats left up there? because i hear them talk, and they do not represent anything that the democrat party, to me, is supposed to be. host: what makes a real democrat? well, the democrats used the to help people. find work for them. just for the people. now, i don't know what they are. host: why are you still a democrat?
8:40 am
-- caller: out of all these democrats i could vote for, my only hope is joe biden, and i am not even sure he is a real democrat or not. host: mike lillis? guest: i am not sure what specific issues she is talking about, but she listed the frustration of a lot of people hit by the recession and did not bounce back in the way a lot of people did in the upper-middle-class and wealthy did. the economy is moving around, and everyone reads about the stock market in the papers, but there is a group of people that are still struggling, and she is voicing their frustrations. the democrats would love to think they are reaching people like that. she mentioned for the people -- that is exactly what the democrats' campaign slogan was in 2018, the midterms. democrats, for all the turmoil in the white house and anti-trump sentiment among the
8:41 am
party base, they have tried to keep it focused on the economy, tried to focus on creating good jobs, lowering drug prices, and cleaning up washington, so it clicks a little better. host: if joe biden jumps into the presidential contest, what is the window for an announcement? how much longer are we going to be hearing more and more announcements from contenders? guest: the reporting from some of his friends and democratic in the -- insiders, the end of the month looks to be the window. that looks to be the window for a lot of what i call more serious or upper tier slate of candidates. biden has always said he would make an announcement as early in this year as he could. if anyone was holding back to see if anyone would jump in -- maybe they thought they would pull votes away
8:42 am
from him, but he wanted to make the announcement as early as possible. i do not think he will make the announcement this week during what will be another hell week in washington as lawmakers in the white house tried to figure out what they will do about the wall and the detention beds. rick is waiting, a republican. caller: good morning. gentlemen, i have an answer and not a complaint. the subject is expanding. the referred is a border code. if you go to the last few pages, you would look at how much money we are spending -- the grand total -- divide that by 66 years. let's do something smart.
8:43 am
billion of spending, redirected to the president's wall, take $5 million and put it in medicaid. there is your answer. spent $900tic party billion, the republican party has only spent an hundred $70 billion. in 2016, obama put the ofocratic party in trillions dollars of spending. so get this reference out. it is on your smart and laptops. rump in theesident american -- and the republican party for trying to make america safe. host: mike lillis on foreign spending as an option as funding source? guest: it has always been a controversial issue. there is a noninterventionist voice.
8:44 am
rick is speaking for them. there are those in capitol hill who feel the same way. those who say why are we send -- spending so much abroad when we can spend at home? the flipside of the democrats argument is that if you do not spend overseas, the problems will missed asset size -- missed asked -- metastasize and reach our bor ders. host: houston, texas, independent. caller: good morning. i wanted to continue the talk about joe biden running. just like you had that caller, the gentleman from idaho, he would be like a classic democrat . democrat party really aiming
8:45 am
for that progressive and liberal vote here that includes the green deal. and a lot of the boomers, union ,ype government employees middle-class individuals, they will really stick with trump. you could see that, he really tried to appeal to them. state of thet union, that is 100% middle-age boomer type of state of the union that he tried to target and i think he will continue with that during his 2020 campaign. what do you guys think about that? guest: i think you are spot on. down theou just boiled 2020 election, as it stands right now, in a few minutes. that is the question democratic voters in the party itself will have to answer over the course of the next year or so. do they have a nominee who
8:46 am
progressivet new wave that we saw come in, especially with the house class, with aoc and others, or do they try to block trump from again putting together that blue-collar coalition in places like pennsylvania, michigan, and wisconsin. make him trade wisconsin for nevada. send joe biden, as a democratic strategist told me last week -- we are not going to ignore michigan and wisconsin again, and especially joe biden. so do you go with the pragmatic blue-collar guy in joe biden and try to force trump to a different way to 271? i do not think they have an answer now. and a week ago seems so long ago in this new cycle. but mike lillis, trump and democrats have reasons to work
8:47 am
together, but tensions are bowling over around what we have seen around the office to work together. how much more are we going to hear about this? guest: plenty. the state of the union was something. the president started with a bipartisan tone. he probably took democrats by surprise. then the tone quickly shifted. it became an attack across the aisle. as lawmakers were leaving the chamber, they were unhappy with what they heard and were pessimistic about things to come. if he cannot even talk to the person -- if you cannot even talk to the person you are negotiating on, how will you make changes to infrastructure, all of these policy ideas they have in mind. and then tensions escalated, because trump had said we have to quit these investigations of me, and democrats of course ignored him. there were plenty of week.igations even last
8:48 am
and then the ship down negotiations pricking that over the weekend, it is hard to read -- and then the shutdown negotiations breaking down over the weekend. it is hard to get a read on. the president campaigned on infrastructure and lowering drug prices. there are areas of common ground, but the devil is in the details. host: 10 minutes left -- roger is in virginia, democrat. caller: good morning. -- and do not say cut me off. give me a second. next companion on the democratic side is not going to have the house. conservativeevery outlet in america will be condemning this person. or russia.
8:49 am
the democrats will know if russia is embedded real bad or not. i would hang onto 2020 for trump . on the russianett investigation and expectations for the week ahead. story infascinating the "new york times," where they built this story, got a comment from u.s. attorneys for the special counsel's office last week in a court hearing, where the kind of tipped their hand. i believe the "times" even said ors, either in the headline the story. they got the transcripts and reported what the special counsel's office is still looking at is whether there was a deal between the trump campaign and russia, where russia would help the campaign with some of the things they were doing online with facebook and other things on social media . then, if and when the president
8:50 am
obama-erauld ease sanctions on russia, which is one of the letter importance top goals. so the special counsel is still looking at collusion. the president is always saying no collusion. the special counsel is still drilling down on that. think always say they robert mueller is close to finishing his investigation. i am not so sure. i do suspect that we will have the mueller report before the election. and the caller is right about that. if the president is a wildcard, the other wildcard is whatever mueller will hand over to congress. host: the story you refer to was published yesterday. phil, centerville, massachusetts, independent. caller: two things.
8:51 am
thing -- the wall. the wall was not even an issue until ann coulter and rush limbaugh brought it up. that's a sham by itself. the second thing, this mueller thing, it's pretty damaging if you look at it for what it is. all the indictments and all the people that are making deals or cooperating. and his personal lawyer, cohen. if they don't get him on collusion, they will get him on obstructing justice, because he has done those things with comey. he made that announcement in the oval office with the russian and, i guess, his interpreter. it is out there for everybody to
8:52 am
see. to think he is innocent of anything is ludicrous. lillis, the caller starting his comments about the conservative commentators that may or may not have played a role in the president's decision to reject the original offer before the government shutdown. i want to get your thoughts on what role they are playing this time around as the clock is ticking to the friday deadline. guest: they seem to be playing a lesser role for slurpee of the caller was talking about the shutdown that happened on december 22. the senate had passed a short-term spending bill that the president had signaled he would support, and then he got rushered that day on limbaugh and sean hannity and ann coulter all went after him at the same time. so when the bill went to the house, he did not take it out. and since nancy pelosi has taken the gavel, she has passed around 50 different iterations to try
8:53 am
to jam it back on mcconnell, and he is not taking the bait. when donald trump voted to open up the government just a couple weeks ago, he really got hammered, again, by ann coulter -- the same people. but hannity supported it, and some of the others who were critical beforehand supported it. i think they recognize -- certainly hannity is closer to the president than ann coulter. so they defended that move. he was really getting beat up, mcconnell was really getting beat up. they have 2020 to look at. if the government is not functioning, you have to make it function. republicans were taking a big hit. the conservative media recognized it, and coulter being the outlier. host: john bennett, you are
8:54 am
shaking your head. guest: mike is absolutely right. whatever the president signals, he will take flak from the right. the calculation in the white house and my conversations over the weekend, i do not think they have quite decided how they wanted to play this. of course, the president likes to keep his cards close until he is ready to make a decision and announced that, usually in a tweet. and mike is right. or can be seen as caving by their base to soon. i think the president, all indications are he would accept most of the deal that emerges and then started to shake apart a little yesterday, but i think we do this another two or three weeks again.
8:55 am
mike is groaning -- so am i. house tohite calculate, and the president knew, that he was getting slammed on this from all sides. peopleernment was -- missed two paychecks. the president saw his poll numbers and approval rating, and now he has a decision to make. maryland,is in democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i must say c-span is the best thing that ever happened to tv. but when it comes to the wall, i am a democrat, and i believe in , but i do noty believe this president should be given a trophy wall. that it has been proven the drugs are coming in through ports of entry, where they need
8:56 am
better security by more border and people who were trying to come into the country, whether it is to work or whether they are running away from violence in their country. we need more lawyers and judges to process the situation. i am against this president having a wall for many reasons for it first of all, i feel the majority of the money should be andtowards the technology judges and border agents. and i am a grandmother. i do not believe any bullies should be given into, and this
8:57 am
president has shown he is a bully. host: mike lillis on those issues, technology, judges, ports of entry, where they stand in these negotiations. guest: spoken like a true democrat. this is the crux of the issue. everyone wants to spend billions of dollars at the border the question is where does it go? at this point, it has almost become a semantics argument rather than a substance argument. john keeps mentioning a concrete wall or steel slats, call it what you want. trump has been more fixable on that issue in recent weeks and months. host: but a bit of back-and-forth, because there was a tweet where he said a wall is a wall. guest: in his state of the union, he said we do not need a wall from sea to shining sea. he is inconsistent but has shown flexibility. democrats have been a little inconsistent. they voted for it in the past.
8:58 am
but they are also showing flexibility. some of the leaders are saying we could take some sensors, reinforce existing barriers -- census, reinforce existing barriers, use technology at ports of entry. those are the details. but if the number of detention dry -- pretty cut and who knows. even if he declares a national emergency, the thinking is he will declare that to avoid a shutdown, but if the issue is detention beds, we will see where this goes. host: missouri is next, independent. caller: gentlemen, i am a blue dog democrat, which does not seem to have any power in washington, d.c. anymore. in bothinst extremes parties.
8:59 am
but i wanted to do some mathematics about the previous shutdown. economy was hit by $1.5 million per day during the entire time. if you consider 30 some days of that cost, wouldn't it have been a little smart if the dems had given in and let him build maybe 100 miles of his wall instead of going through all of this crud that went on? evenat $1.5 billion wasn't addressing the 800,000 people who were not getting paid. ems, and felt that the d this particular case, was shooting the nation in the foot while they were making a point to get to trump. bennett on that point and the numbers the caller was talking about.
9:00 am
the congressional budget office but the cost of the shutdown at $11 billion, but that the u.s. economy would eventually make up some $8 billion of that money that was lost. so a permanent loss at $3 billion. well, the caller is right, and lawmakers and experts on both sides of the aisle will say a government shutdown is always stupid and there were smarter ways to go about this. mcconnell and the senate is usually the first 1 -- later mcconnell in the senate is aually the first one to make statement that says let's avoid this because everyone loses and a shutdown, and if it shuts down again at the end of the week, i think democrats will take more and more ownership. it may take a while, but the bulls where -- the polls were 60
9:01 am
something percent blame the president will continue. democratsthree weeks, will take some of the blame because at some point, you have to bring everyone a solution. i think both sides have tried to do so, but they have gotten to the really hard issues, and a some point, both sides on those hard issues. guest: i think john is exactly right. gos was always going to right to the wire and have pressure on both sides. these things are never easy. it has just become a semantics debate and less about what is going to happen at the border. they can't even agree that there is a crisis at the border, and if they cannot come to an agreement, it is going to be a long slug. but as nancy pelosi always says, they can get a deal if there is
9:02 am
no exterior, external noise beating them down, but the external noise in this case is the president of the united states. host: two great publications to watch to see what happens. the hill and roll call. thank you so much for your time. up next, it is our weekly look at your money and how does that work. we will be talking about the future of the social security program and will be joined by mark willis. stick around. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's andic television companies, we continue to bring you
9:03 am
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. c-span's coverage of political events continues tonight as president trump travels to el paso, texas for a make america great again rally. live coverage is on c-span2 a 9:00 p.m. eastern. tonight on the communicators, from the state of the conference and washington, d.c., we will discuss internet regulators and monitoring the federal trade commission rebecca slaughter and neil chill send. has a roll making authority that is more heresive, so they can say, is how you have to treat traffic
9:04 am
over the internet, here is how you have to treat privacy. , and we a privacy rule do not have the ability to do that across-the-board my comes to consumer protection issues -- across the board when it comes to consumer protection issues. tohave some provisions protect sunday the some of the time. >> people mean so many different things when i talk about privacy, so it is hard to see congress doing something specific because people had not agreed on what the problem is. there are a lot of issues that people could agree on, that these are the types of injuries we are helping consumers from suffering. we could get there, but the conversation is bacon talk about privacy as a general idea, and people me different things about privacy. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on
9:05 am
c-span two. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we take a look at how your money is at work in the federal government. this week, we are focusing on the future of social security, and we are drunk by mark miller, and columnist for "reuters." give us a state of social security and america? --in america? most: it remains the beneficial retirement benefit for most americans. it is ubiquitous and is something that people will rely on dream retirement. but they faced challenges. a lot of your listeners, your viewers, probably heard about clipooming 2034 financial that social security is facing. there are financial challenges that social security is facing.
9:06 am
they are fixable and i don't think anybody should be in a panic mode about social security. host: can you start with just how social security is funded in the first place and where the revenue streams are? guest: it is self-funded through the payroll tax and split evenly between workers and employers, and it totals 12.4%. and that is collected on wages up to about $133,000 this year. taxme above that level, no is collected, and that is how it is financed. that is the primary source of financing. a lesser important source is interest earned on the reserve funds of social security. another relatively speaking an important source is taxes -- income taxes collected on benefits of higher income social security beneficiaries. host: so where does the
9:07 am
shortfall come into play? guest: sure. social security has been building substantial surplus since 1983, which is the last time social security had major reforms done. and currently, it has surpluses of $2.8 trillion. that those reserves are starting to draw down now as the baby boom generation ages, reaches retirement age and starts drawing benefits. year at a point that the trust fund reserves will be exhausted -- we are at a point that the trust fund reserves will be exhausted. fluctuates year-to-year, but not by much. what that means is when the reserves are gone, there would only be sufficient revenue coming in from current payments to fund about 75% of benefits, so we are looking at a really sharp 25% across-the-board cut
9:08 am
in social security benefits, if nothing is done. that is the big caveat. host: what are the other options? guest: the options are, you can either increase revenue, or you can cut benefits, or you can do some combination of the two to restore the solvency of the bygram, and social security law, must project out a 75 year solvency ramp. ways of fixing the system, people talk the 75 your solvency picture. host: we are talking about the future of social security. we can look 75 years out of closer. we will put the phone lines on the screen throughout this discussion with mark miller. our phone lines in the central eastern united states, 202-748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, 202-748-8001 .
9:09 am
mark miller, one of the members of congress looking to try to help this program for the long-term is congressman john larson, a democrat from connecticut, unveiled a proposal to do just that. from the bit congressman talking about the future of social security. [video clip] >> since 1993, there has not then an adjustment in social security, but people continue to pay in and we have reserves in social security, but we don't have enough to sustain us by law for the 75 year period that social security should be. part of proposal does that. we make sure -- our proposal does that. that we extend social security beyond the 75 year deadline, but also, recognize we have to enhance the program, primarily we have far too many people in our country, most notably women, and
9:10 am
especially women of caller, who are retiring with social security as their only source of income command retiring into poverty. walk mark miller, can you us through the proposal in the passage on capitol hill? guest: the interesting thing with larson's proposal is it references a change in a dialogue about the social security reform. over the last decade, the conversation has been dominated benefitse need to cut -- what we need to do to cut benefits? since 2013, the progressive wing of the democratic party has been saying, no, we should have a modest expansion of social security benefits as part of an effort to solve the 2034 problem. that has gone from being a minority position in the democratic party to a majority position. larson's bill has more than 200
9:11 am
-- on the democratic side. many of the democrats in the house are supporting his belt. every declared presidential candidate and those expected to support social security expansion of some kind, not necessarily the specifics of larson's bill. social security expansion, as part of this reform, has now moved into the mainstream of the democratic party. host: mark miller with us for the next 25 minutes, getting your thoughts and taking your questions as we talk about the future of social security. specializingalist, in retirement and aging. bob is up first. caller: please bear with me. this is simple map. it is the greatest extortion of all time. you pay into it, they take your money for 35 years. your employer also has to match
9:12 am
that, the same amount. if i was able to take that money, and put it in a bank account, and collect interest for 40 years, i would have a very substantial amount of money, and i could retire simply off that. but money that the government takes from you, you don't even get the interest back on what they accumulated from you for 40 years. you don't even get the interest. another thing, my brother just passed away at the age of 61 last year. um, employed through general motors for 38 years. he was at the top end obtain the maximum for medicare and social security. never collected a dime. never hear a politician talk about the people who pass away and never collected a dime. if he was able to say that money, he would have it for my sister in law and two sons.
9:13 am
over $1.5ed it at million that the government stole from him. host: mark miller? guest: my condolences on your loss. the point i would like to make is one of the things i hope will emerge from a debate about social security reform is a renewed sense of the definition of a social security is. an it is our -- and it is our bedrock social security program. like an insurance program. if we think about, and it also operates as a pension, the way it pays out benefits, so looking at it from a dollar in an interest gain with a drawdown sense is not the right comparison. goingsurance program is to have some people who are relatively winners through great
9:14 am
longevity, and losers who do not collect because of a premature death. but social security just doesn't ensure retirement. it also ensures survivors. is a breadwinner in a family passes away prematurely, there are survivor benefits that can be paid to that family. and benefits -- there are widows benefits. so, slipping the coin in looking at it from the winning perspective, people who live to advanced age is coming into their 90's, windup drawing down more than they put in, but they have to wait in the insurance words. repurchase fire insurance on her wees not that we expect -- purchase fire insurance on our homes, not that we expect a fire
9:15 am
to burn down -- not that we expect a fire to burn down our home. we have to look at social security in the concept of insurance. lynette is next from utah. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i am about to turn 67. i have not started to draw yet. i am waiting for the 80% accruals to add up. and i am afraid that the slashing will begin earlier than 2034. and i have calculated that at a 25% flashing, if it occurred as early as 2027, i'm better off beginning to draw off this summer. i would like to hear your
9:16 am
prediction of bullet be an early -- your prediction of will it be an early slashing, and should i begin drawing now? guest: that is a great question. first, congratulations on your strategy of delaying. pays off. nicely. once you pay off your full retirement age, the agent which you can draw 100% of your benefits. if you drop below that, it is reduced. up untilop above that 70, you get the delayed retirement credits. it is a very beneficial strategy for anyone who has reasonable expectation of living a long life. cuttinguestion of early before 2034, it is a very, very
9:17 am
middle school chance that will happen. changes to social security has always been done and a gradual way. it is unprecedented to have an immediate surprise change to the program. i would also add that i think the odds of the 2034 eclipse actually happening are quite remote. the reason i say that is i cannot imagine what legislator or what member of congress wants to go home to his or her district, and explain to folks like our caller whether benefits were cut 25%. this is not going to happen in my view. the question is, when do we get this taken care of and how does he get taking care of? john larson'soned proposal, ensuring social security is operable in the long-term. a lot of democrats have rallied around this. what are the republican proposals right now? guest: the republican proposals
9:18 am
have centered around raising the retirement age further. damage in the full retirement age is 66. some have proposed raising it -- currently, it is 66 and on its way to 67 as part of the 1983 reforms. when i mention the gradualism of social security reform, this is the best example. in 1983, this gradual increase in the retirement age was put into motion. we are not done with it yet. has beenlican proposal raising it from 67 to 69. this offense health letter reasonable idea. we are all living longer. we are not all living longer. gains and longevity are not across the evenly population.
9:19 am
gains and longevity have stalled out in the last couple of years. the other problem is what are your chances of continuing to work to those ages? there are rampant -- there is rampant age discrimination and people have health problems and need to quit to take. care of a spouse. some people are saying they want to work a lot longer. it is a great ambition. it is terrific if you can and want to do it, but it is not a guarantee. a recent study looking at the impact of an increase in the retirement age done by an economist at the urban institute who studies labor markets and aging, concludes a further increase in the retirement age would have very severe financial damage on about 25% of american households. the increase is a benefit cut. if you raise the bar on how long
9:20 am
you have to wait to get to that full benefit, it is a cut in benefits. the 1983 reforms, has been estimated, average out to a 13% benefit cut. when we talk about higher retirement ages, we need to understand as a benefit cut. the other thing proposed by republicans is means testing of benefits. it is not clear how that would be done. means testing is not a good idea because it changes the whole notion of social security from an earned benefit to something that you have to get based on need, which starts to sound more like a welfare program, which is not the social security is. host: steve is in philadelphia. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a big problem, but he needs to be solved -- but it needs to be solved with smart thinking.
9:21 am
food -- this is every well-known. years, we will be replaced by technology, so we will be losing more jobs and less income going at the social security. but we need to do is get people to start working in who areucture, people coming in, get the union stronger, get people back to work with hard labor, i take the social security number out from that end because technology will take these jobs away, at least 30% to 40% in the next 10 to 15 years. and that will not put any money into social security, so create these jobs, start the infrastructure. that everybody has to go to college. some people have to big -- have to pour cement for a living.
9:22 am
that is how you put money back into the social security system. host: mark miller? guest: the caller is raising really critical points. you know? softness in wages has been one of the reasons why we are facing the 2034 issue, so there is clearly a problem. i asked some of the experts to look at the social security system from time to time and what they think about automation and how that could impact social security? honestly, i don't think they have a handle on that problem yet, but it is a wildcard. actuaries security have a fantastic track record for projecting the systems in the future with shocking accuracy. there tend to be wildcard events out there. host: robert's next from gainesville, georgia. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning.
9:23 am
curious. i understood social security was years as athe fdr reaction to the depression that there was not enough money moving around inside the wenomy, and the idea that could give some people some discretionary funds to use, and bit to serve as a little for the whole society as a whole as opposed to individual insurance. i wanted to ask mark about that surplus and if i had my history right about the original age of social security. guest: such an interesting question. social security does have its
9:24 am
to restore ther economy in the 1930's. social security law was passed in 1935. i was talking earlier about social insurance and the historical roots of the movement back in the 1930's, and roosevelt from people in from wisconsin part of the progressive movement who had designed the first unemployment insurance system. that was the first place -- the first place that was done was in wisconsin. he brought them in to design social security. social security was designed for that purpose at the time. property among the elderly was a huge issue at that time. we have all heard the phrase, poorhouse. poorhouses really existed back then. i think social security is one
9:25 am
of the proudest policy achievement in our country's history. the it has done to improve condition of the elderly is nothing short of stunning. it is a universal program and fundamentally fair as -- fundamentally fair the way it distributes funds. i don't use it as a safetynet. is an insurance against the risk of poverty in old age. host: santa fe, new mexico, tony, go ahead. tony, are you with us? inwill go to stewart madison, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. appreciate you so much. live right here alone the most polluted river in the united states, the ohio river. i am wondering why it is that the social security of the
9:26 am
collection ends at $130,000? obviously, it was raised to a $200,000 --ion two always a, if it was raised to a to $200,000, it would be more beneficial. thank you very much, c-span. host: mr. miller? guest: great question. many address the caller's question. social security is designed as a middle-class benefit program, and therefore, it delivers benefits up to a certain level. no one gets rich off social security benefits. on the other side of the coin, it is designed to collect taxes in a similar vein. the cap is adjusted every year
9:27 am
using an inflation formula, but what has happened with income inequality and developing income at the high level, and more people earning income that is not ordinary income, but investment income, income from dividends and someone, more and has of the u.s. income base escaped off the top of the cap. there have been proposals to adjust that. what larson's bill does is create a doughnut hole, saying we continue to collect taxes up to that $133,000 level, and and start collecting again at $400,000. that is $400,000 in ordinary income. baseis a small overall tax for that ordinary income. hasof the solutions that been discussed as capturing more income at that high end. ,he other thing that it does
9:28 am
the larson bill, a gradually increases the payroll tax rates and we are paying. period.1% over a 23 split and be something workers and employees would pay. those of the two mechanisms that larson's built does. it restores the 73 year solvency. so, there are several key components. there is a 2% across-the-board benefit increase for everybody that works out to $30 a month. secondly, it raises what is called social security minimum benefits, the benefits that goes to very low income workers who currently receive $10,000 a year from social security on average.
9:29 am
it boosts the benefit up to $16,000. and then the third thing it does is delivers an effective increase in benefits to more middle and higher, when i say hi income, i don't mean wealthy, but middle affluent households, get an effective increase. lifts the cap on that so far fewer households were paying taxes on social security. balanced approach and delivers benefit increases in several ways. host: we have time for one or two more phone calls. what is guest: it is a site i linked all of my work.
9:30 am
that is the place you can find me online. i'm spread all over the web between my writing for royal -- i'm spread all little but between my writing. caller: i am glad you touched on examiningial people that is going to be affected or not by the 67-year-old retirement age. i wanted it anybody considered analyzing the types of jobs that people do getting up to retirement? some are just physically impossible to do in the later stages of aging. for instance, i'm a nurse. and bedside nurse and is really hard -- and bedside nurse a is really hard on your feet -- and is really hard on your back and your feet.
9:31 am
wonderedng the cap, i if anybody considered collecting it on all income until whenever? into the really wealthy people, needad -- they would not the investment if they have been investing. give me some tax credits. but that the impossibility? -- would that be a possibility? guest: those are great points and great questions. let me address the last point first dealing with the very wealthy's benefits. social security for warren buffett and bill gates? the other side of the coin is that there are very few bill gates and warren buffett's. ondoesn't have a real impact the benefits. another point is who are the
9:32 am
people who can work longer? to joke you hear that it is fine for somebody sitting in their nice, air-conditioned office working well into his or her 70's to reach retirement age, but another for someone working on a factory floor. tos is the relative ability work longer is not evenly distributed. higher retirement age is are really problematic to solve the problem. host: kate in glendale, illinois. good morning. caller: i have a question. does mr. miller have any idea how much government actually owes our social security trust? i believe they had been borrowing money from the social for, i think it started back with reagan.
9:33 am
do you have an idea about how much money is in there? guest: as i mentioned earlier, social security had a very large surplus, about $2.8 trillion. that money doesn't sit in a bank somewhere, it is invested in a treasury note. the surplus is left to the government, and the government uses it for whatever purpose it wants to use it for. we sell treasury notes all the time, the chinese buys it, and we use it to fund art government deficits -- to use it to fund our government deficits. the fact that it is coming from social security is immaterial. one thing that could be considered for reform of social security would be if social security invests it into the stock market. even a small part would get a much higher return and you get
9:34 am
on treasury notes, and it could help with the financial outlook. i am not suggesting investing any individual recipient's benefits in stock, nothing that risky, but any pension program out there, private sector pension or state pension fund, doesn't invest strictly in bonds. they invest in stocks and all kinds of things. this is an issue of which side of the ledger social security sits? it is often misunderstood. host: last call, teresa is in maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i question is, where does the funding comes from that pace ssi benefits to children who are been diagnosed with adhd? in my area, this has become a scam. kidsts are putting their up to act a certain way to collect these checks every month.
9:35 am
families were kids are getting ssi checks. is that impacting social security benefits at all and the money available to pay people who have worked and paid into the system? guest: great question. ssi, although it is administered by the social security administration, it's funding is completely separate act its funding is completed -- its funding is completely separate from what we're talking about. it is funded separately. host: mark miller is a columnist reporter at "roaders." -- at "reuters." appreciate your time. about 25 minutes left in our program. -- up next, we
9:36 am
will hear your issues. the phone lines on your screen and you can start calling in. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight on the communicators, from the state of the net conference in washington, d.c., we will discuss internet regulations and monitoring with rebecca slaughter. a seniornielsen, research fellow. >> the ftc has rulemaking that theych more expensive, so can say, here are the rules of the road. here is how you have to treat privacy. they had a privacy rule. we do not have the ability to do that across-the-board 20 comes to consumer protection industries -- across-the-board when it comes to consumer
9:37 am
protection issues. we have some loss to protect from data some of the time. mean so many different things when i talk about privacy, that it is hard to see how congress does anything that is specific because people have not agreed on what the problem is. there is a lot of areas that people could agree on, that these are the types of industries we are trying to stop consumers from suffering. right now, the conversation is very big as talks about privacy as a general idea, and people mean different things about privacy. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. ♪ >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. created as aan was public service by america's of
9:38 am
the television companies. today, we continue to bring 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" continues. host: here is a schedule in washington. the houses in at noon easter. eastern and the senate have it :00 p.m. eastern later today. you can see the flag at half staff continue to be at half staff around washington and a federal facility in the wake of the death of the longest-serving member of congress, john dingell. the flag expected to stay at half staff until his internment. from the white house, the president leaving washington, heading to el paso, texas for his "make america great again" rally.
9:39 am
you can watch that on c-span one tonight at 9:00 eastern c-span two, on, or listen to it on the free c-span radio app. here is a story from an op-ed by the mayor of el paso, the republican mayor, dean margo, saying, we work well. usong border ties makes stronger in not dangerous. the new york times with a story about the city of el paso ahead of the president's visit. quarter -- cross-border ties makes a strong. you can see the story. what you want to talk about. republicans, it is 202-748-8000. democrats, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. bob is up first, a democrat,
9:40 am
good morning. caller: hi. i am worried about the military over the years. they seem to intimidate presidential candidates and be go, and it seems to along to get along because it is such a huge part of the economy. and people are reluctant to cut it back, even though people investing allbe of those resources all over the world all the time, and being the world's policeman coming people want to pull back and take care of our own country and build infrastructure, and things like that. bob, is the democratic candidate you don't think is intimidated by the military? caller: that is a good question. i am not sure, but i think someone from the midwest might
9:41 am
be less intimidated because it is not a lot of military spending their. -- spending there. may be ohio or minnesota with amy klobuchar, or you know, the guy from ohio, is thinking about , i thinkthe senator some of those people might be because some of those states do not have as much military spending as the coastal states, you know? california, like, , theyarris, or warren could be problematic because that is a big part of their constituency and so forth. host: here is a picture of amy klobuchar from her announcement yesterday, the senator making her presidential campaign announcement at boon island park
9:42 am
on the shores of the mississippi river. it was 15 degreesit was 15 degrt when she made her announcement, but felt like seven degrees. [no audio] i wanted to see if you could come up with a representative to be on your show on top again about maybe the social security program. but also, how the windfall clause effects that program? i'm sure it goes into a general fund somehow. it adds the benefits -- to the benefits, and it takes away from what people have actually earned. itt people don't realize does affect to government and
9:43 am
private jobs. you were listening tour previous segment on social security, i assume. you do follow john larson's proposal -- did you follow john larson's proposal? caller: i have not followed that from but i mentioned the windfall clause a couple of times calling in. -- we havewill discussed john larson's proposal, requiring a modest increase in benefits and higher benefits for low income workers. it would be paid for by incorporating new payroll taxes from millionaires and billionaires coming gradually increase payroll tax contributions for workers and employers, a 1.2% increase over two decades. something we will talk about.
9:44 am
luis's in chicago, good morning, independent. caller: good morning. john, i have a suggestion to help you both with the racial issue. host: sure, go ahead. caller: hello? host: what is your suggestion? is for yousuggestion to someone from to come on the show and talk about areas of the world they come from. host: why would that be helpful? caller: because the would people werehy black enslaved. like people would be lobsters in the hot sun. if someone could come on and actually explaining how man came about, why he is like he is, and why he looks away he looks, why
9:45 am
he has hair like he does, and how he lived and developed and became successful and not successful. appreciates suggestions for future segments. the discussion about race in discussion -- the discussion about race in this country became intense after photos emerged last week by ralph northam. nationon cbs face the talking about his ability to continue to serve. >> why do you think you still deserve this job was so many people are calling for you to step down? >> again, we have worked very hard and have had a great first year. i believe i have been in some very difficult situations, taking care of sick children, and right now, right now, virginia need someone who can heal. there is no better person that
9:46 am
can do that than a doctor. virginia needs someone who is strong, who has courage, and was a moral compass. that is what i am not going anywhere. i have learned from this. i have a lot more to learn, but we are in a unique opportunity now. the 400 your anniversary of the history, whether it be good or bad, in virginia, to really make impactful changes. left in ourutes program are talking about issues you want to talk about. tonya, a democrat, go ahead. caller: hello. one of the things i would like to say is, i would like it congress could work over 100 days. when dana was the speaker of the house, congress was in session about 117 days.
9:47 am
[indiscernible] congress cannot come up with a budget. on theseistration cut different department. on these different department. may congress do their don job. -- make congress do their darn job. and one week, i would like to be to watch tv and not see some racist crap. [indiscernible] week -- not go host: that was tonya this morning.
9:48 am
george is a republican. go ahead. caller: i listened to the social security act the kid because he did nothing anything -- i listened to the social security advocate because he did not say anything negative about it. to the young people getting out of school, it will go higher and higher and higher. rates that are paid on the bonds spoke about her paid by the taxpayers. and only half of the people in this country actually pay income tax on one of them. i am paying for that also. rampant. is so the government doesn't even have . statistic on fraud in ssi is taking money out of someone's credit.
9:49 am
socialism is dying. if you tell people that they have to pay more into social security and con not -- and cannot collect more, it is no longer geographical chorale. money and take your invest it 24 hours a day anywhere in the world. socialism is time because capitalism is taking the front stage. host: back to that piece of legislation we talked about, to put numbers on what we were talking about, the payroll taxes paid by employees by employers and employees is 6.2% each today. the proposal looks to raise that to 7.4%, but to do it gradually, starting in 2020 command
9:50 am
increasing over the course -- starting in 2020, and increasing over the course of the next eight years. check out our last segments. we will continue to discuss this as it works its way in the new congress. shock in georgia -- chuck in georgia, democrat. a little want to talk about the social security thing. i was a teacher, and back in the 1960's, you had an opportunity to go on social security or not. i don't know if people know that, but it was too late for me. who werey buddies older than i am decided not to. they put their money, the 6%, into their own savings accounts. now, they are drawing twice with social security pays m&f their not touching the principal, so they can leave that money to their families.
9:51 am
social security is basically a ripoff. if people would just take care of themselves. host: christen city, california is next, susan, an independent. go ahead. caller: hi, i have a question. host: go ahead. ifler: i just wanted to know they never brought this up in the first place, would it be an issue? host: what do you mean about that, if no one brought up the wall? caller: is no whenever mentioned a wall, would it be an issue? host: you mean at the president never talk about it on the campaign trail? caller: right. host: what you think, susan? caller: i don't think it would become a personally. maybe it had been an issue, but i'm not sure it'll be that big of an issue if he never brought it up in the first place. host: here is the president and
9:52 am
his tweets from this morning already, the president active on twitter, saying democrats do not want us to detainer senate criminal aliens. this is the brand-new demand talking about ongoing negotiations, saying the democrats are so angry, loosen up and have some fun. the country is doing well. that was the president in reference to the latest status of the border negotiations. they have reached an impasse over ice detention, and that is where we stand today ahead of the ticking clock towards the end of the week. on friday, the government was shut down again if they deal is not reached and funding is not found the nine different federal agencies that are working on a continuing resolution, the one that was passed that in that the last government shutdown, so we will be talking about talent throughout the week. jan is insane august and, florida -- jan is in florida,
9:53 am
republican. caller: good morning. i love c-span, and i think it is so wonderful with all the people giving their opinions and so forth. my concern is there are a lot of opinions out there, and i am not sure what they are based on. you cannot trust a lot of the media and i don't mean that negatively combat nobodies -- i don't mean that negatively, and nobody's ratings are high. i don't think the are based on fact. how to be get the facts? this is my suggestion. i c-span has a big opportunity to help. maybe, you could devote some time, and i will use the border wall as an example, ok? without giving my opinion one way or the other. yet,one talks about, but no one brings the experts into any forum to speak about it all.
9:54 am
it is just that we talk against one another. in many people in the country have opinions, and decisions will be made based on these uneducated, un-expert, uneducated opinions. host: i promise, we tried to bring many of those experts on. if you look back at the discussions on the border wall and immigration, we have had a lot of segments on this program with various think tanks and experts around town. we know members of congress are going around to talk about these issues. so, we try to do that is much as possible. for which your other suggestion? -- what is your other suggestion? ,aller: it would be lovely also, i would love to know and most people would love to know more about who we have in washington.
9:55 am
it would be great if we could have features of who these people are because we hear all small, and we have people who take money from lobbyists and who do this and that. it is not that easy to come by. it would be great if you could have a little more access to that kind of information easily so you could know who believes in what and who votes for what. host: another great place to go a if you are looking for features on the new faces you are seeing on capitol hill. we have been running a series of new member profiles to try to catch these many new members of congress in the 116th congress for five to 15 member interviews, where they come from, what are they interested in accomplishing on capitol
9:56 am
hill? we have been running them periodically on the c-span network, and they are all available at that would be a great place to start if you're interested in those new members. check it out. ay.will go to k caller: good morning. . i have a question with the launch of trump's 2020 campaign in el paso. i want to be reassured, i want to know that his campaign is not being paid for by us taxpayers. people like others to pay for their stuff, so who is monitoring, and we -- and can we have some coverage and forrance -- and assurance us taxpayers because he is out there all the time. watchdog making sure that
9:57 am
the republicans are having to pay for all of this stuff and not us taxpayers? host: two answers on that. a federal organization, the federal election committee, that is their job to monitor campaign finances, to make sure campaigns are not breaking the rules when it comes to how they can find their campaigns. if they do, the commission has the power to recommend prosecutions as far as making recommendations to the justice department. the ftc is one place to go. you can bet when it comes to president trump, members of congress and the house, now that they have the gavels on these committees, they will be calling to look into some of these issues since democrats now control the investigative agenda in the house. two places to look at campaign 2020 continues.
9:58 am
bill is in chicago, an independent, good morning. caller: good morning. security.out social proposal, social security advance, that would put over well over a billion dollars in social security -- over $8 billion in social security, and allow social security recipients benefitsvance on their with deductions. that would cost money. participantsty live in every -- recipients live in every area of america.
9:59 am
that money needs -- that money doesn't benefit the community. host: want to note the passing yesterday of a longtime member jones, 24s, walter year veteran of capitol hill, , ald to record as a maverick conservative maverick, who died sunday, known on capitol hill for voting for the 2002 resolution for the war on iraq. tried to bring troops home. his military-heavy district was part of his change of parts, and his office had a wall of photos of those killed on the war of terrorism. walter b. son up
10:00 am
sr. -- jones, that will do it for our program today but we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. have a great monday. ♪ >> the u.s. house gavels in at new eastern today to start work for the week. numbers will debate other two
10:01 am
require disclosure of who donates to presidential libraries. there will be no legislative work tomorrow as members will attend a funeral. later in the week, a resolution to end u.s. military action in yemen and possible house-senate compromise on the border wall and federal funding. the senate is back at 3:00 eastern today for natural resources policy. mitch mcconnell says they will take up the confirmation of william barr as u.s. attorney general with a final vote possible later in the week. watch the house live on c-span you could see the senate on air c-span2. members of congress are reacting today to the death yesterday of north carolina congressman alter jones. -- health had declined walter jones. go to fellow republican michael was as says my friend
10:02 am
faithful public servant. his wife reflected his deep commitment to helping fellow north carolinians and fellow people. i express my sympathy to his wife joe anne. nancy pelosi tweeted that it was with great sadness that i learned of the passing of walter jones. he treated people with compassion. so many grief with and pray for them at this time. died on his 76es birthday. >> c-span's coverage of political events continues tonight as president trump travels to el paso, texas for a make america great again rally. ara live coverage is on c-span2 at 9:00 eastern. ♪ >> the c-span bus recently traveled to louisiana, asking
10:03 am
folks what is it need to be american? >> to be an american means you are part of a community. you are able to come -- you're able to overcome obstacles that are diverse in many ways. >> to be an american is a mindset that you can do anything you put your mind to, no matter what background you come from. when you come here, you can do anything. , you will achieve everything. >> to me, being american means you love this country and i mean truly love this country. just like the people, we are all broken. the country can be broken sometimes. maybe it was broken, but you love it all the same. being american means you stand for the constitution, the bill of rights and you wish to uphold them. if you don't know them, if you don't uphold them or you think we don't need them, those are
10:04 am
the formations of our country, that is what we are built upon. i would say you would be un-american to not be devoted to those. >> i think to be an american means we get to stand up and express ourselves. we have the right to express our voice, our action and to close a silencem, to stand by when we should protest makes cowards out of men. >> it is having the right to choose your own future. whether choosing where you live, taking whatever job you want and living the way you want, spending your money the way you want, that is what it means to be american. >> voices from the road on c-span. >>


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on