continues. host: host: joining us now is warren davidson. democrats are mulling over a tax on billionaires in this country. it would affect around 1000 families. what do you think of the idea?

guest: thanks for having me this morning. i think it's a horrible idea. if you think about the 16th amendment, they had to change the plan to accommodate less families. it's an inefficient way to collect taxes but the government you need to know if you paid somebody or you got paid or you got a gift that was too generous. did you buy yourself something? that's what they collect on average ordinary citizens and thank how much they want to know about every billionaire and what it really going to do? it's going to force the people on the edge of being the lowest end of it to disclose all this information to liquidate their assets whether it's farming or businesses or stocks or real estate. it will force them to sell and who will they sell it to?

they will sell it to the wealthiest people and it will grow the wealth gap even more. it's a horrible idea and i think it's unconstitutional seizure and it amounts to legal plunder. host: today in the new york times, neil erwin writes a piece and he cites a paper from the white house published last month from 2010-2018, the wealthiest families paid an average of 8.2% of their income in taxes. the average income tax rate for all americans in 2018 without the capital gains adjustment was 13% and it was 25% among the top 1% of earners. why not make the wealthiest americans who are on average paying 8.2% pay their fair

share? guest: he doesn't define income correctly and if you think about what the void? should billionaires pay more taxes? absolutely but what would be the correct solution? you can tax consumption and everyone would a more including billionaires. billionaires consume massively more than wage earners do. they don't get their earnings from wages. jeff bezos never sells the amazon shares and he can borrow against the value of them and that's not really a taxable event in the current system is to the whole mechanism is a

massive invasion of privacy and it distorts our economy and it just incentivizes investment in the united states and if we simply tax consumption, we could raise revenue more equitably across our economy. host: if the democrats are able to agree to a framework on this larger social spending bill, then it sounds like in the house, the speaker will put on the floor, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, will you vote yes on that when it comes to the floor? guest: i am opposed to both. they fail on math and even if they didn't fail on math, you would have problem with policies. the policies themselves are problematic. when the senate made the infrastructure bill bipartisan, they thought we will find a way to work together to do this. joe biden was celebrating the

wind and nancy pelosi was actively communicating that you will not get the infrastructure bill if you get the bernie sanders agenda. they called the reconciliation bill but is really bernie sanders agenda. joe biden made it clear that it's a package deal. if they are separated by a little bit of time, the point is, the infrastructure bill is a delivery mechanism for the other bill. host: we want to invite our viewers to join us. congressman, you have reintroduced a bill called the cbo show your work act, what is it? guest: the congressional budget

office score error bills. they create financial models to say how much revenue with a wealth tax collect if was structured this way. they will publish a score. they published a score on reconciliation or bernie's agenda as i call it stop it was $5.5 trillion price tag over 10 years. they don't show their work, they don't show their financial models and don't disclose the data or the structure of the model so nobody can replicate it or troubleshoot it. they don't show to the public or members of congress. if we say we like this provision of the bill, how would that work? i might be able to support this specific provision but i don't support the broader peace. you can't really change the model to assess the assumptions.

this would make that model public and would make it accessible to members of congress. i think we could have more collaboration and more understanding over the data and the assumptions that make up these projections from cbo. host: the house voted to 99-202 to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress for defying a subpoena about the january six collect -- select committee, he voted against it, why? guest: i think the whole january 6 commission is not focused on finding facts. as has been the case since 2017, it's a partisan witchhunt focused on anti-trump narratives. i don't think they are seeking the truth and that's why republicans are not as a painting in the commission. the whole effort with steve bannon is just a continuation of that. if you wanted to understand what happened, you would make a lot of things public. they won't even show the video with members of congress with

15,000 hours of footage with members of congress. in a classified setting, they had to have court orders to share with defendants who they still holding to -- holden detention facility so i don't think is designed to find the truth so i didn't want to participate. host: i want to you to listen to benny johnson. he said there is no question it was a premeditated attack. [video clip] >> the podcast from the day before that riot. >> all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. it will be moving, it will be quick and all i can say is strap in. you have made this happen and tomorrow is game day. host: how premeditated was this attack? >> there is no question. the direction of the committee

is to look at that premeditation to make sure we identify. the worst kept secret in america is that donald trump invited individuals to come to washington on january 6. he said all hell would break loose and steve bannon was part of the conversation and the commotion of january 6. the podcast we just listen to talks about it and steve bannon was in the war room and he was in the willard hotel doing a lot of things. that's why we subpoenaed him and we said it's important for the committee and staff to depose him. as you saw, he refused to participate. host: your reaction to what you heard in that podcast and from the chair? guest: penny thompson already knew his decision about the commission before he was appointed chairman.

he had joined a lawsuit to sue donald trump personally for his responsibility in the january 6 attack that led to people entering the capital. he already knew his conclusion. he doesn't need to do an investigation and he didn't need any facts. he already knew what he believed. when you point out inks he shared like these people plans january 6, they planned a rally where the president spoke to people and lots of people came there and tons of people from my district. they came with husbands and wives and their kids came out just like normal trump rallies. there was a massive crowd and they supported the event they also condemned the people that actually attacked others and violated the law and enter the capital. i don't think anyone has a problem saying this was wrong, what happened that the actual

capital. the trouble is that benny and others conflate the peaceful rally that took place on the mall with the actions of some people who cross the line and enter the capital. host: rolling stone has an exclusive this morning. they said they had multiple planning meetings. they said they would talk to staff and members of congress and meetings and gosar allegedly took things a step further. both sources say he dangled the

possibility of a blanket pardon in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protest. our impression was that that was a done deal, the protesters said d. as a member of the freedom caucus, were you approached about this? guest: i was not. when you look at planet, i didn't have anything to do with planning the rally. some of the people you mentioned were active in the rallies and went down and attended the rally on the mall. i haven't seen this morning's piece but i saw some of the earlier reporting. they conflate the rally that took place at the mall with the actions that the fbi so far has said they don't believe were coordinated stop to me, it's

pejorative to say it was some kind of insurrection. the idea that by coming into the capital there was this that they would somehow overturn the government. congress was impeded more by government sitting on the floor of the house in the summer of 2016 than it was on the day of january 6 and seven. host: how about the way they entered the capital? guest: it was wrong. it's obviously wrong and i don't think anyone has a problem prosecuting people who were violent and people who trespass in the capital. some of these people have been held in solitary confinement for the course of 2021. that's a longer sentence than most people would get for any other similar action. they are not being given due process. they don't get to look at the exculpatory evidence. it's essentially a massive pressure tactic to get people to sign plea agreements without even seeing the evidence.

i think the whole effort here goes to trying to divide the country, trying to put this at the seat of donald trump and anyone who would openly support him. i am open to looking at facts. if the democratic leadership in the house and the country were interested in seeking the truth, this would truly be a bipartisan endeavor. it clearly isn't and it's not because republicans are not willing to look into the truth but it's because they are not willing to participate in something where the entire process is a foregone conclusion and they are using it as a tool to divide america and advance their agenda. host: let's take some calls, peter a republican in tennessee. caller: thank you for taking my call. regarding the comments about the infrastructure bill. what concerns me is that a lot of it is not infrastructure, you

are spending trillions on these -- this amplification of great society programs that have been a disaster since lyndon johnson put them in place in the 1960's and it will make us split further in society because you take something like child -- early childhood education, universal pre-k, that's the responsibility of a family to raise their children. what happens is you have these other parts of the country in big cities especially where you have groups that have a high rate of unmarried women having children, no family structure but you will say don't worry the government will take care of your children at a young age. it would basically be indoctrination. you are doing a further destruction of family units which is the foundation for the society.

the parents raise the children and that's not healthy. it's pushing things further the other direction which is going to mean a disaster and to preserve the republic,, -- the constitutional republic we are, you have to have healthy foundations with healthy family structure which means parents of children and they raise them. that's where the strength of the society comes from. this is counter to that. host: congressman? guest: thanks for the kong -- for the comment. this proposal, both of them fail on that but the bigger problem you highlighted is what do they do with the money? it's not just back -- bankrupting our country financially which it is, it is bank thing our country morally. some of the policy has a good intention and the idea of a social safety not is broadly

supported. but you should make it function and instead of creating a way to destroy and undermine families and communities, you should build them up instead of discouraging participation in the economy. workforce participation is at an all-time low for adults 18-65 and we are literally creating an incentive to not participate in the economy and that not -- might not be the intense but that would be the effect. if you look at education and you see that going on nearby in virginia with loudoun county schools, governor who says parents should not have in it on the curriculum in their schools. it's an essentially an argument that was laid out in the washington post article recently. it's essentially that the children belong to the state, the people including parents have no input in how the children are educated and if you think you're going to opt out of the system, the state will

define the limits of the freedom you can move with. this is a socialist idea and we need to defeat socialism and defend read him and we need less government and more freedom in our country. host: pennsylvania, democratic caller, you are next. caller: yes, i would like to find out why do these guys keep talking and talking? that goes for the republicans and the democrats. you keep saying the insurrection was a loving, peaceful day, where? ask the police officers. it was not a loving day and now you are talking about -- how come you don't talk about the people? talk about the people and what you will do for the people, not you will do for yourselves to regain power. host: what are you referring to specifically?

caller: the bill they are trying to pass. what are you going to do for the people, not for the taxes. let everybody pay their share. host: what are the republican proposal to help out with some of the social safety net programs? guest: what republicans want to do in general is we are or more freedom and less government step that means the federal government does not need to tell you what you can and cannot do. there shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all approach to government and the government confiscates a massive amount of american wealth and lets states and communities grovel for some portion of it back. we need to diminish the power of the city over american citizens and we need to increase the power and presence of the american people around the world. since the cold where ended,

america's presence on the global stage has been weakened and china has been elevated most of we have undermined america's domestic economy and grown chinese policy instead of growing america's economy. we can do with trade, tax policy and when it deals with the safety net, the best safety net is a job so we should do things that promote workforce participation and when you look at the safety net, i've got a bill called the people care act that would reform it so you get for republicans and four democrats that would work together and look at the 90 less grams that we spend $1 trillion per year on. we spend about $750 billion on defense and $1 trillion on the safety net, poverty assistance. without setting any spending, you can reform those systems and get things -- and get rid of things where people get a raise or promotion, then they lose

their federal housing subsidy. you could have an on-ramp and offramp that helps people participate in the economy. on infrastructure, republicans have hoses to take the williams, tens of billions of dollars that are already at state and local governments from the covid response, the $6 trillion that was already created and distributed throughout the country that haven't been spent yet. in ohio, that number is over five billion dollars. communities have millions of dollars and they have strings attached to covid. we are still in the middle of a pandemic but states some localities since may of 2020 have said we cannot spend this money on what you told us to spend it on, can we have flexibility? if you get the maximum flexibility, they could do infrastructure with the money they already have and there are republican bills that would do that. i would love to vote on them instead of talking about them but when you are in the

minority, you don't get to schedule votes on the host: host: floor. texas, independent. caller: good morning, i just want to make a quick comment. the republican party's biggest problem and i'm calling on the independent line but i've been a lifelong republican voter. the party is not dealing with the democrats on a reasonable basis. we are still treating them as if they are loyal opposition. they are not, they are communist revolutionaries until -- and until we deal with them on that basis, this country is headed for destruction. you are taking flak because you are right over the target. guest: thanks for calling from texas. all democrats don't agree with

that. the leadership of the democratic party is absolutely where you are talking about. the students thought the country would unite behind them. when they realize that wasn't the case, they said we will have to commit to a long march through institutions. that refers back to the mao zedong comet is march through china when they turned china into a communist country. what does that mean to go through the institutions? they already had arts and entertainment and then they went after education and conservatives moved out of the way and said we will send their kids to cap -- christian schools and homeschools and that's the responsibility of parents. you had to stay engaged in the

local schools in college and academia. the far left is taken that over broadly. if you look at business, the far left didn't have business but they've committed to that and taken that over broadly. they work to take over sports and most of the function of government step democrats control people who work for the federal government who overwhelmingly vote and support democrats in office. if you look at the media else, they have committed to the long march and now the lesson is, are we going to do a counterinsurgency to push them out of these institutions peacefully? if we cannot do that peacefully within the system, that's why they are succeeding. we have and engage them on the right terms. they have pulled everything far left including the democratic already and now we have to say is this where the country wants to go. not long ago, bernie sanders was

identified as independent and supported democrats and is self-described democratic-socialist. people call him crazy bernie but now 48 of the democratic senators support his agenda. in the house, all but may be 20 are fighting to support bernie sanders democratic-socialist agenda. if we do not push back on that in this framework, we will lose even more freedom. host: syracuse, new york, republican caller, welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. the idea that this was an insurrection, i understand it's been put out there and a lot of people believe it because they have seen the videos and the videos are heavily rejected from the actual videos. it was live on tv so anyone who

actually watched it live on tv would say wait a minute, that's not what i saw. the videos you will see in the coming weeks and months are going to show the reality that this was anything but an insurrection. the last thing donald trump said when he released the crowd from the gathering, he said go to the seat of power and he said protest peacefully. i think he repeated it a couple of times. that was the order from him and that's with the people did. the people that you saw doing the things that were isolated for the purpose of propaganda were led by people that were not trump supporters. host: what evidence do you have of that? caller: the videos of these

people telling their story, the actual arrest of some of them soantifa and people like them were infiltrating that crowd which was set up before hand. they were the instigators, the ones who broke in and the capitol police were in on it. there is plenty of video of the capitol police opening the doors and ushering them in. host: do you agree with that caller? guest: p makes some good points. my colleague thomas massey on the judiciary committee asked attorney general merrick garland if there were federal agents in the crowd. he did not accept he would answer because there is an ongoing investigation. if there weren't federal agents in the crowd, he could have easily said no stop there is real reasons for concern that

there were people there for nefarious purposes. the fbi had information ahead of january 6 that there would potentially be violence and the capitol police were not well prepared to deal with that violence. i don't think the capital polices still prepared to deal with it and while there have been leadership changes, the rank-and-file folks are still concerned about the limits of that and recently a whistleblower resigned because of that at the capitol police. they are not taking it as seriously as they could and should. i think a lot of people conflate the rally that was at the mall that was really a speech by donald trump and the political rally where he said peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. and the actions of some people and clearly some people showed up on that day with malicious intent. used don't show up to a peaceful rally with zip ties. there were people that came for bad purposes but that's not

something that's reflective of the ground and that's the problem. the house leadership, speaker pelosi and many of my colleagues in the house and frankly lots of folks around the country including in the media continue to repeat the lie that this was an insurrection. some organized attempt they want to paint as broad a brush is possible to undermine any support for political right in this country. i think that's dishonest. host: the attorney general will be testifying in an oversight hearing before the senate judiciary committee tomorrow at 10 a.m. eastern time and we will have coverage on c-span three and www.c-span.org or you can download our new idiopathic call c-span now and it's free on any mobile device. congressman, if you were to ask the attorney general about that day, what would you ask him? guest: about january 6 specifically, i think you would

say what where the federal agents who were present doing as a follow-up what thomas massie asked. if i was asking another question, i would say why are defendants and members of congress not being provided exculpatory evidence or holistic evidence. just full access to the video of that day and they are denying it because it would provide a good defense. some of the video i have seen and that's public shows people walking the ropes in the capital. they are doing violence in the capital and want