tv Washington Journal CSPAN August 23, 2014 7:00am-10:01am EDT
journal." here is how to make your known by calling. >> if you live in the st. louis you want to give your thoughts on how you saw the 202-585-3883. contact us on sweurt r twitter and facebook e-mail.d us go to the pages or website of politico and you will see this media reporter for the public indication ferguson media.
the line between user reporting nd opinion is blurring as some national journalists inject their perspective and even themselves into the story. drew your attention to the coverage that kind of put there motion?n >> it was definitely last week saw reporters from the huffington post" and post when they got arrested that limelight and he you were wondering why it took the arrest of two reports to launch this. we noticed it the thing that the situation with global or local united states situations where you have all the media parachuting in and strong.emed so many media showing
up and we heard people talking we would seeia and -- we ews on cnn or anted to see how is the media affecting the story and coverage. host: you talked to some who analyzed media locally. to you? they say caller: it varied almost like we quite a few of rofessors at university of missouri and some of them said this is going to happen in any situation. part of the omes story the moment they show up. needed to be story spoke d other professors differently and said they had been inserting themselves too no longer was the media
the objective observer in the swaeuituatio inserting they were themselves and showing too much of one side which was usually protesters' said and police were not getting their fair because of the way police were handling the media the things media but from ferguson were so ripe for was inevitable. host: we have a little bit of took place andat ere is that which you probably saw in other media. >> let's go. videotape. let's go. hurry up, let's go. don't do that to me. not tell me not to use -- >> we are down to about 45 seconds. go.s >> let's go, let's go.
move -- >> your car is not here. >> it is. the incidenttioned but what occurred as far as the wesleyg of lines is when lawrie got on television to talk about his experiences? caller: that was probably the start of it. he s a hard balance because would say on the interviews this sn't about me but all the attention for the next day was all about the two reporters that is seems ted because to be in the united states where ou have two reporters that are arrested for seemingly very ittle reason, they seemed to say it was because they were not leaving mcdonald's. with 24-hour cable news you need something new to keep this is the so something new. this seemed to escalate because arrested orters were
it felt like more started to showing up to cover ferguson and made his statement can see the you k incredible rise in time cover on twitter n and in interaction that it was that everything really took off. host: from wednesday august 13 msnbc, the presence of nn and fox with minutes that were aeurpd. minutes, day msnbc 89 nn 69 minutes and 64 or so for fox and this is cable coverage during the week. it grows from in. thing that was constantly talked about was the police presence. jake tapper talking about his experiences on the street of ferguson. let's get your perspective after we show it. [video clip] now why they are doing this i
don't know. threat going is no on here, none, that merits this. is none, ok? absolutely there have been ooters and over the last nine days there's been violence but there is nothing going on on his street right now that merits this scene. you wrote about jake tapper's experience. what did you have to say? caller: there is kind of a rare moment for jake. seeing and what you saw he's pretty much giving an opinion. observation of the situation but he's inserting imself into the situation by judging it in a way. he is saying he doesn't know -- -- is a rule of journalism you don't know the local it is on and in ferguson scene and ly chaotic
jake is a very experienced journalist so it is one thing to would to him but some argue he went too far with the situation. as some go as far other colleagues. don lemon interviewed the family can help in any way let me know, you know how to personally.o me that was again kind of blurring of the lanes. at this point i don't even know lines blurring of the matters any more because it seems like everywhere you turn is inserting themselves with every story. part of alist becomes the story and some of us are back to we should go the days where we were objective like walter cronkite but even he stories at some point. so it will happen inevitable but in ferguson it fwas incredible storyny were covering the and our colleagues were
sweden, russia, were coming down there. it attracted so many people for a natural disaster or anything but it was for the unarmed black teen which kind of happens a frequently than people realize in the united states but also all the civil unrest. host: hadas gold before we leave any bright spots of media you saw?that caller: i think it put a lot of media.n local the st. lou"st. louis post-disp has been doing a good job. crews have been doing an amazing job and the huffing post is actually teaming up with a a fellowshipo fund for a local newsroom to continue the ing ferguson after
media leave. it e are seeing that and shows how strong local media is. hadas tkpwaoelsd gold's piece is on their website. if you want to give your thoughts on how the media told ferguson story and if you oth with her thoughts or have her thoughts you can call host: let's start in cofield, north carolina. tyrone joins us. did you think about the coverage? caller: good morning. a 't cut me off, i'm democrat. msnbc has done a wonderful job coverage and cnn has
done a wonderful job. news and news match did not and it up until the video and max could degrade coverer the policeman. white policeman are trained to away lack people and get with it. i worked in government 30 years nd i have seen this happen where i worked. msnbc and cnn apart from the others? fox news had reporters doing a good job letting the american people know going on. when the attorney general they let them know. news and news max pick and choose. degrade want to do is black people because they have a lack president so they put obama into it. host: that is tyrone off of twitter a viewer says coverage
lacking in true factual information because of the owe a-- i way authorities opaque way authorities allowed information to emerge. caller from mclean, virginia. one question or story tions is this iterally exploded in a very short amount of time and from my point of view the question is is actually the media in circumstances like there. like the situation where you have a fire and 900 fire companies show up to put it out you have tkpwgot citizen ournalists and mainstream journalists and local ournalists and the overkill that takes place makes it very difficult to actually sort out the actual story here. the se you can't tell
journalists from any of the coming in that are and my concern is that it clogs the story, that you really can't have an easy the crux of through the matter and what is really happening. ou are just hit with this deluge, particularly on twitter, much more s it difficult to get a true factual takingntation of what is place. host: as you followed the story what did you pay attention to? cable television, online? how did you focus on it most? my particular case it was online and cable. can be very deceiving. but online it tends to be the trade.and everybody wants a 10, 15, that they ideo clip can post so people will look at it. that really doesn't necessarily tell the story.
because you have to sit and pheupminutes worth of video to get real context as to what n between everybody involved. next, call from michigan independent line. c-span.hello the problem was that thousands known le had already about exactly what happened in even on before the media got there. then when people watched the realized they were being lied to and the truth was being distorted. that is what angered everybody and that is why everybody went raised their arms because that is what was on peoples phones. recorded exactly how this happened. away, he was ing shot in the back of the left arm. raised his ound and
hands was shot five more times. forward he wasng shot in the top of the head. that was the kill shot. that is known by all police officers as the kill shot. host: your thoughts on what you saw and watched during that time. the thing.t is many people when that first shot stopped everybody and everybody looked to see what was happening and they filmed it. then they tried to take everybody's phone. missouri, ouis, aaron, democrats line. you doing? how are host: fine, thanks. you are on. i just wanted to address significant heard from -- heard from the last person i guess they were politico and talking about the media coverage. host: yes. caller: i was not particularly impressed. st. louis county and i
msnbcy much had it rely on and cnn for their coverage with people there. initially some of the local stations had people down there getting tear re gassed and they got tear gassed. but overall i think the coverage limited and i think that it speaks to the ownership this town.s in things like helicopter coverage, know. there was no helicopter coverage at night. that the ey would say reason they didn't do that was restrictions.a.a. but f.a.a. restrictions were only up to like 3,000 feet and needed to have aerial coverage and they did but at e during the day night nothing. ost: why do you think more aerial coverage would have done as far as the telling of the story?
a completewould give picture of what was happening on the ground. it was only people on the so confused s were and changing so fast i can't other major city in the united states that wouldn't have had news helicopters that stuff from the air so we could see what was going on. was very confused. and even now they have got -- a lot of like msnbc of a boom upon top high to be able to see what is happening. i think locally people who praise the "st. louis there is a paper that is only a shadow of its self. host: our guest talked about inserted how they themselves. did you see that? and did that matter to you? that is kind of a general thing now in journalism. observe journalism pretty
closely and you can't really get annoyed it but i am when i see things like anderson cooper fly in after the story two weeks and starts chastising people in the all makes me think it is about anderson cooper and his career and brand. that is pretty annoying. people, that really is why they are here. ere is their big chance to get their big spotlight on the big story as opposed to focusing on the story. host: we have set aside a line for those in the st. louis area if you want to give your 202-585-3883. twitter says coverage in ferguson was like most media interpreted s of journalism. ohio, ear from loretta independent line. caller: hello. host: you are own. go ahead. caller: i heard about an incident in salt lake city where
cop shot a white man and you hear nothing on it. i would like c-span to cover too. host: where did you hear that? caller: it was on channel 8, i believe, my local channel. and there was a person that c-span the other day when you had the call in about the same nd he told sto story. it is not publicized at all. i would like to hear more about it. it checked to have out. giving -- well, our nk we are losing of speech. i wish c-span would check that some air time. host: larry from tennessee, democrats line.
hi. hello. host: you are on. i would like ing to address is your topic is ferguson and of we get 30 to 45 minutes to or 11 ned first 10 mrs. gold.spent with having said that, michael brown couple of bad choices and we are told by the time we are to make good chance. he swings at an officer and i the argument in he has black know people in his district. it is nice to come out and brown but there are other people that need to be around this rush to -- ment lake -- lake we like we saw with the child car people gethe
it wrong when they jump to clauses. come outn time it will he defraud it on himself. host: what did you think of the ferguson?rage in caller: i thought it was all ight but i'm like someone else said about half of the protesters were media and it around ike jake tapper cuomo and some of them were not to instigate but trying to play ignorant like the second was shot, mr. cuomo said he didn't see the man approaching the cop. us did. of how is it that the media can't the media. host: a couple other stories. "washington post" has a story from the w policy obama administration taking a "new york erage -- times" -- on friday the administration proposed a role that with go into effect religious allowing college or other groups to inform the department of health
services of religious objections and contact insurance companies and arrange for birth coverage at no cost to the employer or employees. previously the organizations ere required to notify insurance companies directly a step some organizations said complicit in m providing drugs they objected to acome days agoide for business if it met the definition of a small privately company. according to the rule such a ompany would be a small number of owners, minimum percentage of wnership concentrated or minimum percentage of ownership concentrated among a small people.of the company couldn't be publicly traded. new hampshire, independent lane. caller: good morning. into wednesday morning was watching fox news been coverage has absolutely awful. megan kelly was interviewing a pastor white and
the topic they were discussing as al sharpton creating and deep deepening racial division in the community. pastor -- when they went to pastor white they sked have you experienced al sharpton inflaming racial tensions and al sharpton has settled things down. i just spoke to him about 20 i think he is doing a fantastic job, they immediately cut to breaking news update of what was happening on the ground. when they got back they never pastor white again and moved on from the topic because it didn't fit the narrative. host: if you found the coverage awful why were you watching it? to know what ed was being said on different stations. i watched c-span, "washington one of my -- washington get all ut i want to the angles because a lot of my riends have been saying if he
has -- michael brown had ssaulted an officer darren wilson which from what i have read on cnn and several other true.s is not but that hasn't stopped stations la like news and far right political pundits like the conservative journal from there because it fit their narrative of defending officer wilson. host: jason new york, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. there's been a great deal of coverage on both the networks cable. i do think that the reporters more involved t in this story than what i have seen in the past. it is hard to know right now going to not that is skew the results. what i mean is whether or not impact on the any grand jury in st. louis.
day, as you the probably know, those people have been exposed to all of this is rage and whether that going to influence their remains to be seen. i'm a little bit concerned that kind of lt of this coverage where you are interviewing witnesses and xperts and commentators and analysts and people all over the lace that there may not be an indictment at all. host: that is jason from new yo york. twitter edward perkins says us to cover allows ferguson how we see it. yellin gave a speech yesterday talking about the thoughts on it. this is covered by the financial times saying her challenge in first speech there was to be formidable. the remarks had to be original on the other nd
are some way off and fueling the hoopla around jackson hole would only make her harder. she resolved it with a technical speech about labor markets that little directly about minute tear policy but helped -- monetary policy. it was more on underemployment more weight to possible structural changes in the labor market and points to the danger rising interest rates too late as well as too early. the effect was highlight the uncertainty of when rates need to rise which raises they may need to go up earlier than currently expected. barbara on the democrats line from missouri. caller: i want to tell you that years in delwood which is where that went on in ferguson. me, the police there definitely harassed young daily basis.n a
that was the way they kept them in check. what i want to say about the i watched it is all around and what it showed us policeman ent that a went to who supposedly saw a boy the street and ended up murdering him. that is the story. we need to see that. that is what the media tried to show us. hen what we saw is the police tried to prevent the media from covering the story. that is what made the media part the story. when we saw the police trying it the media from people, they attacked the media, the military come in and attack the people. that is the story. can't be on one -- you know, down the middle on that. was horrible. and we should see that is how it the rest of us. if ferguson can be treated like that so can everyone else by the
police. it is up to our media it make sure the people of this country brutality that was put on ferguson as a result of what they have been doing to ferguson 30 years.st host: the state newspaper in outh carolina has its lead possible changes for the police department in columbia about clippon camp rails. the police are testing the body worn cameras to win more public support and show embattled department both transparent and using innovative policing methods. eight officers on foot patrol in district wore nt small cameras thursday night. weremore are purchased and to be provided friday for officers who walk five points main street districts. i'm excited about it he said i a an indicationis of us being forward thinking and transparent. mike, good morning. rockford, illinois. caller: good morning.
c-span.ning, watched the whole thing on cn tphfrpblgncnn and what i found fascinating was the shift of power from the office to the state police police, to the swat team, to the the national and guard to protect the headquarte headquarters. the shift of power and during the interviews how the would say the state police was in power at the same time the chief of police would thanks to the governor for overseeing everything. it was like they were pointing in power out who is -- they they would have would get together so many people and have the curfew. control of e the
power slipping back and forth confusing to me. alvea we will hear from from fernando beech, florida. republican line. caller: yes, sir. i'm 85 years old. i lived in georgia, born and georgia and we got along so good. along so good. all the blacks and white worked together. took e all poor and we care of each other and now i'm just looking at the way it is turning. nobody -- everybody is against just ther and this is separating us. into is kind of going these buildings and tearing them down, messing up these businesses, people trying to a link and this is -- trying to make a living and real hatred between --
host: what did you learn from ferguson?coverage of what did you see from it? learned that they are -- they get together and then they just really hurt everybody. hurt people and they just-- we had our business about broke into when dr. king we had to guard it. deal with that one problem and let the other alone? let these people's business land. you can find them talking argus radio an independent outlet showing video during the just couple of paragraphs says if you watched
footage of police clashing with protesters in erguson or chanting of protesters you probably saw some f it from argus radio but the station wasn't live streaming before a police officer shot and killed michael brown. a few disafter that their equipment arrived in the mail. they machine to offer live streaming concerts to help independent musicians. saw what was happening in ferguson he grabbed the new on thed game to ferguson night of wednesday august 13 and started streaming. website.a link to that media coverage of ferguson is about.e are talking about 15 minutes or so and your view. it, your arned from perspective. that you can call are screen.
margaret in indiana. democrats line. i was watching fox news this morning and it shows how media can affect different situation situations. this morning fox news was claiming that isis was about to in the united states through the southern border and republicans are the ones who complain about the and they are the ones who rile up people by saying these things. is no direct immediate threat from isis in the united states. ridiculous. host: that is margaret from indiana. texas was in y of
town to talk about immigration and talked about potential for eople coming in through the southern border and made those comments at the heritage foundation in washington, d.c. new hampshire today part of several events planned there. if you want to see his comments the heritage at foundation go to c-span.org and look on the ame or front page, best to type his name. or those and other thoughts including events concerning isis c-span.org to get that information. , ve from port st. lucie florida. end line. caller: organic. sure what night, tuesday or wednesday on fox on bill went into complete meltdown about al sharpton paycheck from msnbc or something and being over there earlier a rd it comment about he helped calm things down and i just think
o'reilly has gotten so radical that he can't even see straight. he has complete hatred for president obama and he's so radical over the last four -- he's gotten so four years and blames president obama for all since september away 1 and we all know went in iraq and we are up to our ankles in alligators because such a bad decision on attachme that. host: as far as mr. o'reilly yes o'reilly's thoughts on sharpton you didn't agree. agree.: no, i didn't i thought he was adding flame to the fire and al sharpton went in something. i thought it was totally wrong said and il o'reilly think he's been on the wrong side of what has been going on atthis country the last year
lea least. he's gotten so radical it is unbelievable. ost: correspond kneel, palmetto, florida. republican line. good morning. one more time and you probably want to turn down the radio or television, please. caller: good morning. ost: before you go any further turn down the television so you don't get any feedback. caller: ok. media -- ok, if it weren't for the media we on.dn't know what is going but what people fail to realize it's not -- they missed the point. the whole s that -- they are going back and forth about what is happened.and what
the cop point is that killed the kid and that was it. in the t what happened store and the cop, how he felt n, what at was going opb his problem was. it is all about the killing. lancaster, ohio, democrats lane. david. our view of media coverage in ferguson. caller: good morning. host: good morning. you are on. caller: in the state of ohio i -- in the state of ohio happened.d have never first of all, in the state of we have cameras everywhere. we have cameras on cops everywhere everywhere, light poles, everywhere. we in the state of ohio he would have been taser
ed. the other guy with the knife, he -- stays been stays ared. host: whether did you think of media coverage. caller: they jumped from one thing to the next like all the time time. get like as soon as they off this coverage they will be isis.something else like host: as far as the actual coverage in ferguson how would you rate it? during did you watch it? caller: it was like coming to america. it is like they probably had news stations and reporters here than was at, at -- you know? host: from twitter a comment not a viewer if you were
there you don't know the truth. he financial times talks about goldman sachs and morgan stanley. they are in talks with the on rtment of justice mortgage-backed securities. writing the organizations are in discussions with justice over that they mis-sold mortgage backed securities, a wee week bank s in a goldmanca agreed to pay agreed to pay $1.2 billion to action which ted alleged it had sold bad mortgage-backed securities. d.o.j. is turning to other banks after the settlement with morgan settled for $9 billion and bank much america $16.35 million.
gathering evidence and a potential deal is some way off. anthony from arizona. independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. host: what did you think of the of ferguson by the media? caller: well, pedro, i would my to quickly say condolences to the families across america when incidents like this affect it. he media missed an opportunity and that is whole communities first lationships with respond e esponders, so we spoke on ferguson but we missed the point. there are a lot of communities law enforcement are do ing to be pro-active and great things and this is time to showcase if something is going ferguson what is going hometown of fayetteville where we have the military force.
we have a seek and safety series oing on the last year in fayetteville, north carolina, where they have highlighted throughout america how law and communities have to better protect each other. the media should have reached out and said look at this place, look at that place. community members should have went out and supported their law and first responders saying this is how we get so that we don't have to face those things in the future. timothy m twitter media r said mainstream liberalism d before but sensationalism. facility losion at a in texas a test rocket manufactured by the company blew itself up a few hundred feature the prairie after a problem was
at the facility in mcgreggor. it was testing a three engine f 9 r successor to the grasshopper rocket to launch and land on the same site. it stressed that rooting out the one in the flight is the purpose of the program and was particularly the limits of the vehicle further any previous test. company practice the will review the flight record details to learn more about the performance of the vehicle prior test.e next the explosion comes as the company is fighting to begin a hare of the market to launch a national security satellite into orbit. sauued it should be able to alliance.unch from david in plymouth, north carolina. laine.can caller: i want to say that military -- or henever the police are dealing
with the civil society as an entity as opposed to as american citizens you have this problem. i worked in the 1970's and i school and a ketball teams would have game win and we would have undreds of thousands of people in the streets and they could control those crowds. nything that happens beyond what the police didn't allow, [inaudible].ficers a lot of times they would set hings in motion to get actions they want. gunshots, throwing bottles. a large typical with crowd and a lot of times people will act out situations. in riot control or crowd control you are be able to block that. host: relate that to the media coverage what. are you saying as far as the see as one thing but what you see on tv is another?
what i'm saying what they allowed media to show was can show because some areas they couldn't get into. blocked.as wanted to different things didn't allow get into the air space to view it. so those things they wanted to the police orchestrated to happen. those things away saw were those allowed.at the police because these people are trained. paisley, florida. caller: there are tanks that is g the streets, pretty scary, man. host: ron, as far as your media coverage what do you think about it? caller: i think the media coverage was pretty good. said, it pointed out the know, theory that, you police forces in this country, ferguson, have become more militarized with
equipment from -- iraq war and host: was that the first time you had heard about that media?m, through the caller: not the first time. it brought it right to the front where you actually see it. more let's hear from one call, sandra, jonesboro, arkansas. you are the last call on this. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm well, thank you. ahead.e on, go caller: my question to you is, i .sed to live in st. louis i have a son who currently just prison and we of were getting ready to move into the ferguson area. to move on ecided west. .e came from chicago, illinois so, reverend al sharpton, jesse jackson, rainbow push, we have been dealing with that for a long time.
media people. anything goes on they want to be on tv. ferguson i'm going to play it back as if it was my son because edit currently got prison. you committed a crime. the police had to do their job. 'm not saying that whatever happened to michael brown he got killed but you look at your own situation. if it was my son going in there you didn't igars, pay for it, that is a crime. the police have to do their job. sandra from jonesboro, arkansas, the last all on this topic as far as view of media coverage in ferguson. we will talk about what is in he papers as far as most headlines the view of the defense department and white house when dealing with isis not only in the middle east but looking toward syria to give us tilghman will join us. then you will have the thoughts people known as the on campaign 2014 and
2016. our news makers program is on c-span. 10:00 the republican from indiana is pence.st mike one thing he talked about is oreign policy and how the u.s. should respond to isis in iraq. [video clip] hold to the view that arouses evil and the erception of american withdrawal, the perception of do ica pulling back i truly elieve has emboldened the enemies of freedom, of course enabled by orld and communicating a stronger and tment to our allies stronger economic and military relationship in europe that will
forward. but with regard to iraq, been, you know during my years in the traveled to -- in congress i traveled to iraq and times.stan 10 different i spent time in mosul. the extraordinary tragedy this week that took place in the that courageous journalist james foley, our family.go out to his but the u.s. must respond in a support efforts isis out of iraq. there's been a clang in government in the -- a change in government and the kurds have stepped up and it is essential that the president provide the leadership and we provide the kind of american ilitary support that will ensure that the iraq that was by much american sacrifice -- the es that mean boots on
ground, governor? > i would leave that to military experts to decide. but when you see the rise of a murder o murderous murderous terrorist army that as secretary hagel said is far some small cell terrorist organization, this is an military effort that is on the ground that is able to assets, it is absolutely essential, working with our working with , across the rope and region that we come together and not just simply to week on this atrocity this but that we literally bring to this murderous army nd we re stostore peace and stability and territorial integrity to iraq.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us andrew tilghman a reporter at the pentagon. good morning. guest: good morning. front f we go to the pages they tell what is currently going on in dealing with issues of isis. leads with post" obama weighs military action. new york times" says officials saying u.s. considering actions in syria pointing to that country. is going on as far as what is being thought about as far as isis is concerned these days. things are moving really quickly. s you will recall about two weeks ago the president authorized air strikes in iraq and that seemed to reach a turning point about one week ago when this umanitarian crisis on mount sinjar seemed to be resolved and but this week what has been we have seen an intense if i kicks of air -- mosulification around the dam area. e have had probably 50 or so
air strikes from u.s. air craft providing close air support for kurdish air forces as they pushed back against the isis forces. not a traditional terrorist insurgent thing. toe ave real forces going to toe over territory itself. we have seen the rhetoric from washington begin to evolve week and now this talk of expanding air strikes into and just a general sense that this is going to move into may t phase, whatever that be, is certainly coming about. ost: in a relative sense we started hearing about isis and now we hear about it all the time. or those not following that close tell us about the group, its size and influence. group's leader goes iraq o the insurgency in from years ago. we heard about him back in 2006,
2007, 2008 as a key insurgent leader against u.s. forces at time. his organization has again through several iterations and on the syrian er side of the border the past couple of years. taken very large bits western iraq and northern iraq. very large cities and it is unclear how large the organization is. that is a key question. them over at the the pentagon to give us a sense 15,000 and at least on the military side they have been their s because i think intelligence is a little bit knowar and we don't really quite what the size of the sort oftion is and what allied groups. host: one story you wrote about
was talkinghe group about how 800 isis soldiers fight back a large contingent of iraqi army. why and what does that say about condition of the army itself? guest: it says a lot about the condition of the iraqi army. basically what we realized unfortunately is that a very arge portion of the iraqi army that the u.s. military spent ears and years training just disintegrated. the morale was bad. equipment have the and weaponry because the government of baghdad wasn't it with forward units due to sectarian reasons and politics. some weeks ago as though the force on the isis or so, in out 1,000 iraq, they have other forces in syria, so it looked like they were not much more than 1,000 rolling iraqi forces. think it was basically had so
terrorized the region that iraqi army units were literally ropping their weapons and running the other direction. it was an ugly situation. ost: tell us what the pentagon is considering language with the white house -- along with the forward?se going . i think there is a consideration on both sides about the need to side ething on the syrian of the border. as we have seen in averages and pakistan when an insurgent group has a saeurpbg wear on the other -- sanctuary on the other side not kes it difficult if impossible to address. everyone is focusing on this isis forces on the other side of the border on an really hat doesn't exist. isis forces are moving back and forth. both at the pentagon and white house we have heard some nothing know ic and clear but you how the language evolves slowly. clearly there is concern about discussion internally about expanding the current
and military strategy to include potentially syrian side.n the host: if you have questions for our guest about things he says and about syria and strengths of isis and u.s. response republicans, 3880 3882 for rats and independents and you can twitter e-mail and it was thursday when the defense secretary talked aboutorters isis and that is chuck hagel. here is a little of what he had say. [video clip] >> it is a sophisticated and any group we have seen. they are beyond just a terrorist group. they marry ideology, a and stication of strategic tactical military prowess. hey are tremendously well funded. this is beyond anything that we
have seen. we must prepare for everything. the only way you do that is take cold steely hard look at it and get ready. host: does it surprise you when i characterized them this way? did.t: it i was in the briefing room at the time and i think all the surprised re really to hear the language that he used. he used the term imminent threat. see likehe term as you nothing we've ever seen before. it was really very dramatic a secretary who has been pretty cautious on this topic in a lot of ways. this white house has been cautious in language and to hear threat like the pushed hink was kind of the whole situation on the washington side to kind of a new level. first call go to the kareem from fort lauderdale, florida. republican line.
go ahead. caller: hello. host: go ahead, you are on. a question that been in forces have iraq plenty of times since the gettingdesert storm and their local law enforcement. my main question is why isn't it to this day they have not learned from us, u.s. how to handle these situations? well, i think you are referring to the iraqi forces, they are having trouble with this. i think there's a lot of reasons. they don't have the same tactical training and extremely good gear. but i think more importantly issue. a political i think what we have learned the past few weeks is a very large
security the iraqi forces just were not particularly loyal to the in baghdad and when they were confronted with a real onht, they just decided both the officer level and on the nlisted side this was not a fight they wanted to fight. so, i think that really this a political issue inside iraq and inside the iraqi i think one es and of the big questions now for the pentagon they have got several and ed u.s. troops there their primary job is to assess the iraqi force and figure out of it, how good it an be and what kind of investment might be needed and might be of investment not very effective. ost: is allegiance to the identity of the country a problem for the forcis? guest: i think it is. you have a situation where the sunni portions of the portions ofstudenty
-- sunni portions of the securities themselves have broken away and under other circumstances we might call this a civil war of some sort. that is not the language we are using but that is kind of what is going on. , 20% to 30% of 20% plus of the land from the government of baghdad. host: bethlehem, pennsylvania, been.rat line, caller: good morning. r. tilghman, i have a question pertaining to -- do you remember chernobyl with the nuclear reactor. guest: i do. host: you remember japan, their nuclear reactor? i do. nuclear ran has their reactor sitting on the worst earthquake area. have an area that past.2 thiskes
week in iran. had that been a where are they going to get their money if nobody wants to buy their oil if it's radioactive? think i am not familiar the the risks involved with earthquake that you are concerned about. i do think one of the things i thehinking is how much issue of iran and its nuclear program has been put on the side burner. we have not heard about that on the front page for some time. dynamicsne of the
there is the government in tehran and washington the found themselves on the same side of this issue with isis right now. seeiranians don't want to ice is growing in power. theirant to see government in baghdad secure. it depends on how complex the chess game has gotten in the middle east area host: how does isis get its money? >> i think that is a very good question. i don't think iran is funding them. iran is a shiite country. they are not getting money from iran. there is some money for coming
from saudi arabia and the gulf states. i think there is money coming from criminal activity. there is a lot of kidnapping going on. is a real comment not revenue stream for this organization. they are getting weaponry that they seize from the united states. as they rolled through northern iraq lately and these iraqis units fled, they left behind , american made more equipment. it is disturbing when you think about the amount of american-made weaponry that isis now has in their arsenal. from florida, frederick is up next. i am calling in reference to the situation in iraq. i am a vietnam veteran. when we going to learn?
we lost 57,000 men over there. overommunists took eventually. we went over to iraq under the pretense of weapons of mass destruction. there were no weapons of mass distraction. and thatted more chaos is my opinion. i'm a vietnam veteran. thank you. ofst: i think the idea getting back involved a militarily is troubling to a lot of people. thisimportantly, president. this is one of the fascinating thislines here has been president heading into the sixth year of his presidency, he
campaigned on getting us out of iraq. this exact same region and situation seems to be going up again. things, the experience in vietnam and iraq a thede ago, are hanging over decision-making process in washington. it is making it a lot more complex and entangled than it was a few years ago. host: when you hear syria being does itd in this topic, surprise you that even this topic is coming up from the white house and defense department? does. on the one hand this event astray should does not want to get involved merrill -- militarily in iraq or syria. the pentagon is not interested in this. you want to focus on the pacific region. they want to get the budget
squared away. are equallym resistant in their own way. grounduation is on the in iraq and syria is very troubling. clearly, the situation in the middle east, this is a country forming. this is a very large force that is expanding its territory. it does surprise me a lot. thise same time, discussion is not out of with the situation that we're hearing about on the ground over there. host: andrew tillman is our guest. caller: good morning. good morning, john woman. -- gentlemen. i think president obama has done a very good job.
if you rush to get a lot of these airstrikes done and a lot done,se military moves the united states military is a well oiled machine. it takes a lot of effort to move equipment around and to move men around and the rotation of men. the day shift, the night shift on the ships. proper and itone has to be done right. i think the residence approach is absolutely right. it takes a lot of planning from and a lot of time and effort. host: would you support strikes in syria?
caller: i think it is good to have it on the table. i am sure it is in the planning stages. said, there are a lot of intelligent people that work at the pentagon. i trust what they do. i trust the president's judgment. host: he makes an interesting logistical the things involved in serious military operations. one of the things i have heard over the course of this week is that of things being said suggest the white house and the state department are mounting a significant diplomatic effort to build a coalition. there is hope in the white house that sometime soon they are going to come forward and
announce all of these things have come together and they've got a massive contribution from other countries that are going to join in contributing to this fight. general dempsey is the top officer at the pentagon. states wouldnited use its unique capabilities but not all of its capabilities. you can see a situation where we can ask for airstrikes in syria from great britain or helicopter support from france and ground from the arabping gulf states. i think that is what they are trying to draw up behind the scenes. they don't want to get the u.s. military primarily involved in what is going to be a significant military operation over the next two years. host: general dempsey commenting
on thursday. >> that will come when we have a coalition in the region that takes on the task of defeating isis over time. they will only be defeated when it is rejected by the 20 million disenfranchised sunni that reside between damascus and baghdad. i think that is clearly on the minds of the military. beenwhite house has supportive. it is try to build partnerships and not go alone like the previous administration did. you hearntagon, general dempsey talk about that. the senior military leadership doesn't want to be drawn into this in an extremely resource intensive way. cost bothto share the in blood and treasure and in
terms of money with allies and partners. behind the scenes of the pentagon, there is concerned that the nato allies don't spend that much or contribute much to these missions in the past. there is hope that we might change that with this particular situation. host: ben rhodes spoke to reporters yesterday's. if we see plotting against americans we stand ready to take action against that threat. we have made very clear that if you come after americans we will come after you. that is going to guide our plan in the days to come. guest: that is so even hearing from the white house. specific talk about protecting americans and protecting american interests. that is reflecting the fact that they want to keep this as narrow as possible.
if there's going to be a broader mission to defeat isis, they want other countries to step in and say they have a stake in that as well and they will get involved. the white house is signaling to the allies elsewhere is if you want the united states to expand the on the mission of protecting the united states, then you've got to pony up some resources for that. mark?will they western guest: i think this is an incredible test of that strategy that obama has talked about for many years. it is ok to have some airstrikes over libya and have some of those planes be from france. this will be a real test of this he can put a coalition that brings to bear significant military resources. host: davis from all heil on the republican line. caller: good morning. ouruestion has to do with
intelligence capabilities. i am sorry if your party covered this. but i am wondering is we always seem to be a day late and a dollar short. likebecomes a big threat it just popped up out of nowhere. husseins back to saddam and the poor intelligence we had on weapons of mass distraction. is what has happened to our cia and our ability to really penetrate on the ground? have we substituted the spot and type warfare and intelligence for actual embedded intelligence? i think you make an interesting point. i am not an expert on our intelligence apparatus.
i do think that has been a significant challenge, one of the reasons we see things move so much more slowly is because there is cautious as a pentagon. they don't have the clarity of what they would like to have. i think the reflects this organization. are closed ands secretive. it is very hard if not impossible for the cia to just find some guy and have them grow beard and send them over and send back some info. that is not really happening. not having that real basic human intelligence is a problem. it is one of the reasons why things are moving slowly. herbie is from
mississippi. caller: good morning. this creates enemies. they're going to fight back. we are fighting for the oil companies just like in israel. that is in inches for someone other than united states citizens. they are not bothering us in the united states. we continue to try to control their territory. people always have her systems. fromu take out the people owning this thing about war for we would get rid of those two things we wouldn't have war at all. guest: i am reluctant to conflate those two issues.
i think they are different in a lot of ways. oil is anabout interesting and valid one. one of the things it is troubling about isis right now is if you look on the map and the areas they are moving into and where some of the oil production is in the region, someare beginning to seize real oil-producing assets over there. has a lot of implications in terms of the price of oil and maybe the global economy. to bring inbility revenue and maintain a military force. bitink it is a little oversimplified to this is about oil. there is the factor of oil in here. it complicates the situation. it is something that people are keeping an eye on.
guest: i think that is the hope. op-ede president had an in the washington post that said something to that effect. a scary andsuch unpopular operation. we have seen over the past few regular sunni iraqis throughout the north and throughout the west of the aligned themselves with isis to one degree or another. i am not sure that it is quite that simple. one of the things we have going on right now is isis is rallying a lot of popular support because they felt like they were getting nothing from the government in baghdad. host: richard in maryland.
verily -- very troubling. by johnasically created mccain and lindsey graham. didn't haveng obama anything to do with it. isis is a created problem. organized. i don't know that there is evidence to support that. isis has a history that goes back deep into the early parts about american occupation 10 years ago in iraq. it has evolved a lot. the it has benefited a lot from some of the missteps that the
american military made in terms of alienating the population interact. it is its own animal at this point with its own momentum. is how to address it moving forward. host: andrew tillman is our guest. we have about 10 more minutes for our guest. if you have questions. just to point out. there was an attack on an iraqi mosque. the president has said that dependence on a strong government would lead to issues revolve -- resolving that. what does it mean as far as
going forward in dealing with iraq and dealing with isis? that was an interesting story. i spent some time over in iraq some years ago and i spent a lot of time there and kept a close eye on it. it is a real mix in terms of the sectarian demographics. third of each. as a microcosm. if you see the shiite militias attacking the sunnis, it suggests that the whole thing could unravel even further than it already has. you just see the weakness of the government in baghdad. the province is only 60 miles from baghdad. attack andt kind of confrontation going on is another example of how the
government in baghdad really controls almost nothing north of baghdad. host: mike from pennsylvania. areer: i think you brilliant and very well balanced on your analysis. 2.7 like to make. out our history books and look at what has been going on for over 1000 years. thanisn't a lot different the moody running around in somalia and egypt. what i want to focus in on msu theifically is what scenario where sectarian violence overlays that with the tribal reality. was theaw over there sunni, shia, and kurds.
that was number two. the tribal allegiance was umber one. what i see as a scenario is i agree with what the president is trying to do and it needs to do. a he needs to build a realistic coalition. my fear is what is happened with is they haveration basically pulled the rug out from under our allies on it numerous times. we have the british foreign minister criticizing american foreign-policy directly, that is eye-opening. the germans of done the same thing. i think we are in a position now where it is almost go alone or pray for rain. it somebody may get motivated enough to help us. that't actually believe you going to see any significant per dissipation from other arab countries except for perhaps
financially. if things go nuts, the turks will get involved. i think you make some really good points. issueeath the sectarian is a tribal issue across the region. i think some of the political things to talk about our interesting. some of our traditional allies have strained relationships. i think the odds of getting some participation from muslim countries is a big if. very communities have been reluctant to get involved militarily in the past. of i get the impression that the white house is trying to change that and see if they can expand
the coalition beyond nato essentially. there are a lot of questions. politics in turkey and saudi arabia and what would happen if the turks a man because of the history of the ottomans. is a greatt question. congress? about what role will it play? i get the impression they are like a deer in headlights right now. everybody in congress tends to look at things through a political lens. everyone has political baggage left over from iraq as it unfolded over the past 12 years. nobody really wants to make strong statements. years of statements from john mccain and lindsey graham that we should do something. they don'ts them,
offer up details about what that something ought to be. little specific guidance. i think the administration is going to be left with this decision-making. it's going to have to do what it thinks is best. i don't see congress standing in the way. i don't see congress really weighing in and taking political ownership. i think the white house is going to have to trudge ahead. this is another example of how things don't work for a well in washington. caller: i would like to say that we are always going to war in these little scraps around the world. most of our allies stand on the sideline. to be does it have americans taking the lead all
the time? the countries around there should affect them more than us. the muslim community is always on the sideline. you have all of these people running around. they don't stand up. they act like they are scared of groups like isis. even muslims here in the united states. we should not be fighting for them. we are getting our kids killed. their arms and ran. all the money that we spent and these people are like gang bangers on the block. as soon as things got tough they hold off the uniform and ran. what we talk about that? we are spending too much money
and treasure around the world and all we do is make enemies. makes a think john really interesting and important point right now. the sentiment that he has is of americans and a lot of people at the white house and people at the pentagon. one consensus right now, america should not be forced to be in the lead in bearing the brunt in blood and treasure of the site. there, who is going to share in this. you begin to drop pictures of something that hasn't existed before. that is a very large-scale military operation that involves a diversity of participation.
i think that is what the white house is trying to put together. it it would be more diverse than the coalition in afghanistan right now. that would be a diplomatic feet. host: the coalition wants america to take the lead? guest: understandably a lot of countries don't disband billions of dollars from her own treasury and spent thousands of their young men into harms way. that is a natural spots for other countries to think. at the same time, they want to having theecurity of situation on the ground influenced the way they wanted. up or shut up quality going on in the indebted -- united security community. that is going to come to a head. host: this is tom for our guest. caller: good morning.
topuld like to say off the we should drop -- arm the kurds and let them do the fight of the ground. just to see what kind of momentum they can game. have istion i would other countries like turkey and their populations of she's and sunnis and kurds. what is the fear from those countries that some of those populations could the evolving hard-core radical as him -- radicalism like isis? tribal mentality will take
over and instability will come to their countries. your secondnk to point is a big concern on the part of these muslim countries that these forces will be unleashed in their own country. a the monarchy in saudi arabia has a lot of concerns about sunni extremism. a lot of the problems in egypt stem back to some of these same political issues. a lot of those governments would rather see this whole thing play out in the desert of syria than their own backyard. i think about arming the kurds, that has been a key part of the playbook for many years. just provide arms to some of the group on the ground. with the most a serving things we've seen about isis is that we gave the security forces in iraq a lot of high-end equipment in many ways. and thet rolled in
iraqi soldiers fled and left huge arsenals of weaponry and humvees. they left helicopters. the white house and pentagon are beginning to realize that when you arm some of these groups, you can be sure the arms will stay with those groups. i think there is a sense that arming those groups can be a good strategy. it can also make things a lot worse if those weapons fall into the hands of the wrong people. host: this is the last call from warren. warren how there were not able to stay strong and use it to their advantage.
comment, i think president obama and his leadership need to get behind governor perry and close of that border and get serious about doing that. god knows who is coming across their. him andd to get behind that of seen him persecuted in the news. to your point about the border, i've heard people say that before. i don't think there is much evidence at all from the intelligence community that you have extremists from the middle east come across the mexican border. wethose examples that exist would be hearing a lot about them with a lot of specificity and detail. it is a risk hypothetically. nothis point, that has
baird out to be something that is really happening. host: looking at the pentagon, what you look at in terms of strategy over the next few weeks? what are the telltale signs? guest: i have been paying close attention to the movement of u.s. military assets. , theple of weeks ago pentagon acknowledged that they had some be 22 on the ground and some helicopters on the ground in northern iraq. i thought that was interesting. once you bring in air assets you have to have an airfield and a security perimeter and a maintenance shed. that is when you begin to see the military footprint expand.
a close eye on not just the troop numbers but what those troops are doing in the assets they are bringing in a how that might signal this is a long-term presence. tillman covers the pentagon for the military times. thank you very much. coming up, two groups that focus on young people. we will talk about millennial's and all attacks. we will be joined by both of those groups. this is the 50th anniversary of the wilderness act. ♪ >> special primetime programming
next week. monday on c-span, a debate over scottish independence. on tuesday, issues on a irs targeting of conservative groups. educatingnight children from disadvantaged backgrounds. thursday, a budget committee hearing. friday night, native american history. discussion of school choice. how the poor can save capitalism. night, neil armstrong.
night, a tour of simon & schuster. friday, in depth with ron paul. three, the reconstruction era. tuesday, the end of world war ii and the atomic bomb. wednesday, the follow the berlin wall. thursday, world war i and how the attitude changed. friday, a nasa documentary about the apollo moon landing. you can find our television schedule one week in advance. let us know about the programs that you're watching. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook and follow
us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: we are going to talk about young voters. two guests.d by good morning to both of you. with the term millennial. when it comes to issues of politics, what does it mean? how do view politics as well? aret: millennial's considered people born after 1980. they are known widely to be a very socially progressive, fiscally concerned generation. up ins one that has grown growth in social
media. host: would you agree? through think 18 34-year-olds. itss a group marked by tendency to be creative and innovative and entrepreneurial. this is the facebook generation. exciting generation has a lot of labels on it that i don't think are true at all. y are called lazy and entitled. i think it has a lot to offer the country. host: the pew research center said that politically 50% consider themselves and appended. what does the case, it mean for your organization as you approach politics? guest: we want to be pro-generational. we look at the majority consensus position where young people stand and represent that.
on social issues you will see millennial's align more with liberals and democrats . on many fiscal issues there is a lot less consensus. for the most part we try to encourage civic engagement. that has been totally depleted in this country. less than 20 states still teach civics. importantly, it has been cut from our federal funding from the department of education grid kids are growing up with no understanding of how government works. nonprofits are trying to take up the slack. host: talk about your organization. we have a point of view for what improves the lives of young americans. what will create more well-being an opportunity.
that is less government and more freedom. that is where most americans are today. they don't put their trust in politics. they don't trust big institutions. they want to disrupt the status quo. they make a difference in the clinical process. host: when it comes to one issue that you focus on, what is that? guest: the economic issues of emotional attitude opportunity. they are depleting our opportunity. policies like obamacare are held in my generation back. the shareds like economy with uber and left and food trucks and airbnb where government regulation is keeping
people from being entrepreneurial. guest: with respect to obamacare, our organization is supportive. the reason for that is if you look at the policy in its totality, it benefits the financial well-being of our generation. not only does it allow people to stay on their parents insurance which is covered millions more people, and also ends discrimination against people with existing conditions. get moret of allies to people covered so less people have to file for bankruptcy. 50% of bankruptcies are due to people being unable to pay medical bills. fair to the taxpayer. when people who are uninsured one up in the emergency room, we as taxpayers have to cover them. the spirit of the law is spot on. it is getting more people insured so the don't get broke.
the rollout was a disaster. it is hard for us to understand how a government website did not work well. the spirit of the policy is a noble one. host: you heard some perspectives from our two guests. if you want to ask them questions concerning politics, this is your chance to do so. we have four lines. how do you live yourselves in terms of party? we don't fall on the democrat or republican spectrum.
we align with democrats on issues but other times we are critical of democrats. 51% of millennial's are independent. we don't play into the binary frame. it is more important that they see their wages increase and see the government represent their needs on college affordability and so forth. those are the issues that we focus on. have all groups within your organization? guest: if you look at our facebook page for our e-mail everythey represent element of the political spectrum. guest: we are a nonpartisan nonprofit organization.
we have a point of view. we tend to criticize both political parties when they aren't voting for things to make lives of young people better. there are democrats the past obamacare. audience is concerned about some of the democratic leadership. are times when republicans have failed to live up to their ideals of being advocates of the free market and opportunity. how: the headline just says obama lost the millennial generation. guest: the popularity of the president with anyone after five or six years in office is inevitably going to decline. what is promising is millennial's are losing faith in the presidency. we have this green lantern theory in america that a
president can help us prevail out of all of our national challenges when it is congress that lights legislation. can overrides that a veto from the president. much moreas authority. millennial's are learning the importance of congress and their part in this culture of gridlock could millennial's a poor. -- abhor. voting is critical. these congressional races are going to have a major impact on congress to get things done. two thirds of millennial's don't think anybody has their priorities at heart. they don't think the politicians care about them or their priorities. they have lost faith in this president. obamacare is not helping our generation.
if you ask 18 through 24-year-olds if you could vote to recall the president, 54% would do so. there is such discontent with young,sident among the -- significantlyowed congress ands of the media. the president is much more popular than them. host: young americans don't trust big institution. the unholy alliance of big government and big business is deeply unpopular. guest: absolute. this is a cartoon that demonstrates how there is an
alliance between government and big special interest institutions. both the local part fallen prey to that. guest: does your group support campaign finance reform? the problem is bigness has decided that adding value to their customers is less important than creating a relationship with the right people in washington. many laws you pass, we have not been able to stop that. what we've seen historically is it doesn't solve the problem. we need more transparency and empowering the grassroots. you give big business power when the government grows. need to limit the size of the federal government so big business has less influence. host: eric is on from florida.
caller: i did have a couple of philosophical issues. i think there is an issue here with the labels we try to put people in. to say't just try everybody has the same motivations and ideas. i would like to hear your idea on that. with someone being socially liberal and financially conservative, how do you expect to pay for liberal programs that people want? keep say your social liberal and fiscally conservative. i didn't say fiscally conservative i said concerned. are concerned about their
economic well-being. just to clarify that characterization. put stimulus programs like raising the minimum wage, not only do empower low income bucks inith some more their pockets, where are they going to go? they're not going to go into a bank. they're not going to be sat on like corporations. they are going to go right back into the economy ammann which is a stimulus. the minimum wage increase will have a minor stimulus and create jobs. i am supportive of raising the wage as are most millennial's and most young republicans. 69% of young republicans support raising the minimum wage. when you look at income
the average ceo makes 700 times the minimum wage worker, it is unconscionable that we can live in a country of such stratification and not make college less affordable. that is shackling our generation in poverty. as far as minimum wage goes, it hurts young americans the most. americans and have minimum wage are least likely to be there for a long. of time. if you raise the minimum wage, it doesn't mean everyone has at minimum wage gets paid more. it means there are fewer jobs. there are fewer people making that wage. popularly, we need to educate our generation that some these policies sound nice.
obamacare is a good example. 60% supported the health care law. they wanted health care for everyone. they believe that everybody having access to health care is a good thing. when it was rolled out, it did not improve the health care system. now they oppose it. young people support raising it in theory. when it gets raised and they see it go to $15 in places like seattle, there is higher youth unemployment as a result. young people become much less satisfied in adjusted. it reduces employee turnover. most small business owners who have raised the wage of said
tot it is a huge contributor lowering training cost because it combats turnover. if you raise a minimum-wage it creates jobs faster than those who have not. is 35 yearswage old. there is a myth that this is a position for teenagers. see manyarting to middle-aged workers who have children are stuck in minimum-wage positions. 90% of fast food workers never get out of minimum wage. they don't rise to managerial positions. quality, low pay jobs that are not enabling people to have a living standard. who ends up subsidizing them? we as taxpayers have to pay for their food stamps. -- $4.6 force would
billion for subsidies that are for people who work for companies that are too cheap to pay for them. for tired of paying corporations who are too cheap to take care of their workers. guest: youth unemployment is the largest problem facing our country. only 20% of region college graduates were able to find , yet americans are not finding any real economic opportunity. two prior to as a polity that contributes to that problem is folly. andeed to do the hard work educate young americans about how these policies will impact them. i don't think the average person studies and understands the economics of minimum wage. it sounds nice on the face but
hurts our demographic. if you look at what is happening in greece and spain. if we keep spending and regulating and created a economy where we create sony rules and make it hard for businesses to get started. there are fewer opportunities for our generation and will make life more difficult for a lost generation. mo is calling from nashville, tennessee. it is such a wonderful way to wake up on a saturday morning and listen to this dribble. i can't believe the two young men such as yourselves could sit there and spout this garbage. it must be nice to run a nonprofit. it must be nice.
i don't know where to start. you moan about minimum wage. what do you know about minimum wage? i don't know where this country is headed. if you raise the wage, it doesn't have any significant effect on job less whatsoever. there been studies that show that there are job gains from it. updates income inequality. i agree with your points on youth unemployment. it is globally a crisis. one way to solve youth unemployment is to invest in no-brainer solutions like
national service. -- you havesupplied all of these societal problems like preparing infrastructure. you can put all of these idealistic young people to work and solve those things if we would invest the money on the front and to actually fund americorps. of the budgets cut americorps funding. that makes no sense when we know that for every one dollar invested in americorps it yields seven dollars and returns. guest: i had a minimum wage job. before college. i learned a lot in that job. i was not stuck in that job. to have muche money in my pocket why went back to college. i got an education.
anhink minimum-wage jobs are excellent way for young people to get in the economy. i don't think they hold young people back. government isthat the solution to the problem. we've got 18 job training programs. they are not working. youth unemployment is at unsustainably high rates. the gap between continue to grow. goingng more money is not to solve this problem in any way. we need real growth that our generation can lead. it at thenot leave state and local level? is why you have 13 states raising the minimum wage by themselves. cities like san diego the just raised the minimum wage.
realize it is unjust to keep people stuck in minimum-wage positions. these are not teenage jobs anymore. 30'see people in their doing minimum-wage jobs. you can support kids on that wage. food stamps. they need other government programs to help keep them solvent as human beings. states are going to move forward. the federal government is in paralysis right now in terms of passing any legislation. the states are proving that it is working. are also seen residual growth of everybody's wages. pressures employers to raise everyone's wage. terriblenation is since the recession. host: let me take a call. are you ready for a
serious debate? let me hear your best on the war on drugs. i want to hear something. guest: i have a lot to say. i think the war on drugs is a complete colossal disaster. not only has it been an effective, it has been racist and its implication. it has shown and proven itself to prop up the industrial complex. let's just look at marijuana. not only has states like washington and colorado past legalization and seeing millions of dollars in tax revenue that has gone into funding schools, it is a former president -- form
of raising revenue. of showsentific study that marijuana is less dangerous or safer than alcohol. it is safer than tobacco. many aeading to so course or rations. -- incarcerations. people are getting a substance that is less toxic. it we could stop locking up so many young people and poor minorities. guest: guest: i think there is a lot of agreement here. we can increase opportunities for young americans. it is ridiculous you make a mistake in high school and can be feeling the effect of the small mistake the rest of their lives. laws need to be reformed right away. i think the war on drugs has had
a negative impact and has taken away opportunity from our generation and is very problematic at its core. generation opportunity has not gotten involved in the drug legalization debate. but we have gotten involved in saying we should not steal opportunity from young americans the cousin of the mistakes they make in their younger years -- because of the mistakes that they make in their younger years. federal laws create penalties for fairly harmless crimes. it is bad public policy and something that needs to be reformed. i think a lot of agreement can be had across the spectrum on this issue. about raising tax revenue? politicians are always looking for more revenue and new ways to tax things. that is the wrong debate. the right debate is whether the criminal justice system has the
right policies in place and whether marijuana should be legal or illegal. states should be making that decision based on its own merit and not whether it can be another source of tax revenue. guest: tax revenue can fund higher education, social services, public health. isn't this a common sense way of getting revenue? even grover norquist supports marijuana legalization. guest: as far as policy, i think we need to talk about reforming the laws. i don't think politicians should look at everything as a way to tax our generation more to pay for more government. this is an issue where we can move toward freedom. i think that is the key point. not how much money they can make. you look at prohibition laws and craft breweries. we are still looking at whererohibition laws
people said if you will make alcohol illegal, we will. sign up for all these things. a are still suffering from lack of opportunity in the craft beer industry because of those post-prohibition laws. i hope people will not make the same mistakes with legalization. host: john, hello. almost you started off immediately talking about how all these taxes are supporting this older generation with medicare, obamacare, and all this, how this is destroying all of your chances. there was a study that came out ant week that children cost average of $250,000 to raise a child until the age of 18. i raised two children. if each of those gave me back have250,000, i would $500,000 and would not need
medicare and social security to keep me going. also when you talk about rules and regulations and free-market, there are 300 million people in this country. do you think we need 300 million sets of rules so everybody can act like they want? guest: on the point about distribution of benefits, taking from the younger generation to give to the older generation, have to look at whether that is good public policy. young americans are the poorest americans. younger generations have less time to acutely well. -- accumulate wealth. it is wrong to take from us to subsidized and older, wealthier generation. we need to look at the future of the country. best thing is not to take more from us when we are young and poor. these programs are not sustainable.
a.m. person today will not realize social security benefits. everyone says it will be bankrupt and there will be no drawe for my generation to benefits without must reform. is going to bankrupt my generation with higher taxes. we cannot count on any benefit from that from either. 90% of young americans support immediate entitlement reform. case,in social security's what would you support in terms of reform? guest: there are obvious places to start. you can get out fewer benefits to wealthier seniors. you can start slowly raising the retirement age. when it was started, 65 was an age that few people were living past. today, the average life expectancy is well in the 70's. those are simple reforms to start with. you can take a look at broader reforms giving people more ownership over their own dollars.
to save those programs, there are simple reforms right off the bat. host: what is your opinion? guest: social security is funded through 2038. my grandparents rely on social security like many grandparents for over 90% of their income. socialey are not given security, that burden falls on us. families have to pick up the burden of supporting their elders. if we just raise the cap on social security for owners over 130 thousand dollars in year, we could make it solvent until 2070 or later. you are right people are living longer. poor people are not living longer. there was a study that showed in fairfax county, a wealthy for menlife expectancy is 82 and for women 85. but in mcdowell county, a much is the samey, it
life expectancy as iraq. when people work menial jobs their whole lives and hav is ugly strenuous labor, to say -- and have physically strenuous labor, to say they have to wait five more years when they're not living longer is disingenuous. the other thing is the national debt which i also have a lot of concern for. it is the cost of health care and medicare. we have a messed up system and how expensive drugs and procedures are in this country. we have this perverse incentive system called fee for service where doctors are paid by how many procedures they give you as opposed to wellness. obamacaremething -- will set up organizations that focus on quality of health
instead of quantity. doctors will be incentivized to keep people well so they don't have to keep coming back to the doctor. guest: we have seen government bureaucrats fail miserably at determining what quality is, how to define wellness, how to incentivize dollars. the marketplace does a much better job. there are tons of perverse incentives driving costs up. most of health care spending is through insurance companies and employers. it would drive the cost up. most americans are not incident must to make responsible decisions -- not incentivized to make responsible decisions. we do need to reform health care. i think obamacare went the wrong direction and gave bureaucrats and third-party payers more power. government centralized
has more negotiating power with companies and hospitals to lower rates. rates on drugs through medicare are much lower than through the free market. is an elastic concept. the private market should reign when it comes to health care and we should not re aree for people so they ar less uninsured and have to go bankrupt is a fallacious notion. i am a 48-year-old. i'm not sure generation that is. i would like to ask you generation about a paradigm shift. not to have republicans, democrats, and everybody separated. but to go from problems to
solutions. what are we going to implement? what are we going to do? the second question i have is, do you like the alternative media more than the mainstream more truthse i find in the alternative media and would recommend that for your generation as well? host: when you say alternative media, give an example. daboo7,youtube, stevequail.com. a lot of things on the internet that are called truth. in terms of the solution, there are so many. some of the no-brainer ones are things i have already referred to from expanding national service to raising the minimum wage. i also think that is a lot that can be done on college affordability, a topic we have not gotten to yet.
we have shifted the notion of college over the last few it has been where for 200 years established by ben franklin as a system for public good into one where we have considered college a private commodity run by loans as opposed to grants to provide access. that whole system needs to be reformed by legislators across the country. in terms of the immediate, there is a lack of trust in the media. we have seen corporate consolidation in the media. huge conglomerates on most of the cable networks. there is not a lot of competition. most perniciously, the news is incentivized by ratings. when you are incentivized by ratings, you have to report on sensationalized concepts that are sometimes not salient to the public interest. wouldose a measure that
firewall newsrooms from the larger need to report to shareholders in corporations so they can do the reporting they have to do to hold government and private institutions accountable without fear of repercussions and without the need to pander for ratings to make revenue. guest: the caller asked for solutions. i think it is clear and simple. our generation is ready to solve the problems facing this country. freedom will drive progress. bycan improve all americans freeing this next generation to do amazing things. to come up with a ridesharing bnb to like uber, air provide more affordable options to stay in a new city, to come up with things like facebook that connect our generation in ways never existed before. our generation is ready to do
those things. it will not be through government solutions. we know government is broken and bureaucrats cannot solve those problems. if we are going to free the future of our country, we need to free the next generation to innovate our way out of these problems. i think that is the solution. as far as how to communicate with our generation, it is not going to be done through big news organizations. we are not going to watch the nbc nightly news. it will be through direct contact and adding value through our lives. it is no surprise would get more of our news from "the daily show" than the classic anchors on television. if you're going to communicate with young americans, you need to meet them where they are at and offer value to their lives. that he wants more government rules and regulations to make sure we get the right news. that is not how humans work. we are going to get news where we want to get it. the burden is on us to communicate with young americans
in the places they are at. guest: i don't want more government. i want smart government. here is the difference. smart government recognizes you need to allow social authorship -- entrepreneurship to happen and innovation comes from the private sector. and investments from government -- but investments from government have allowed great institutions like google to happen because federal funding for research has allowed companies to come to fruition. i wrote a piece recently about the ice bucket challenge. wheres the difference government is a greater force for public good than the private sector. millions of people have uploaded videos and raised tens of millions of dollars for als, which is amazing. however, if you look at the national institutes of health, they fund over $30 billion of medical research per year.
in 5% cut to that budget would just -- which just took place cut over $1 billion. they are the largest funder for als. if you want to make a difference on numeral als funding, you vote and look for innovation funded through government dollars. it will not be funded by some private entrepreneur because you need tens of millions of dollars to have innovation that will not come out of the private sector. it will come through government-funded grants. we need smart government to have that kind of innovation. then you allow the private sector to take the discovery from government and put it into private products they can sell and create jobs around. host: let me get in a couple of calls. darling, minnesota, republican line. caller: i have a couple of comments for matthew. i heard you say something about government creating jobs for young people. i am sad you think government is
supposed to create jobs for young people. is i would like to give you a history lesson on your parents generation. right now today, the young millenials are mostly from the democrat and liberal side saying minimum wage is not cutting it. ande jobs at mcdonald's walmart were never intended to feed a family of four. they were intended for kids in high school. guest: walmart is the second-largest employer in the country. caller: yes, with a lot of part-time people. this is where my history lesson comes in. when i was growing up in minnesota, we had west publishing, the ford motor company, a steel plant, the gillette company. i was making $3 an
hour. i had girlfriends working at gillette making $18 an hour. they did not even finish high school. host: apologies. we are going to have to leave it there. guest: i don't know where she was going but it sounded like she may have been making the case for better wages. $18 an hour is significantly more than the minimum wage. they can then afford goods and services and use that money to go back into the economy and take care of their family and even have savings for college for their kids. i think those kinds of wages are a good thing. get abusinesses say they better product and result from workers and they are paid well. host: flushing, new york, democrats line. caller: how are you doing? caller, i am not sure where she was going with her
pointer she was arguing for better wages. my point is about social security reform. it is nice to say we have to raise the retirement age. but what do you do about low income workers, someone like my grandmother who was a nurse's aide? her backb -- by 65, was going out. she worked hard. what are you going to do for hard-working americans doing the best they can do? how can you tell that person you are going to raise the retirement age? if you have less money, you get less care, quality is not as good. how do we honestly say to them who have paid taxes and invested in the country that we are going to raise the retirement age on you because people are living longer? thanks. guest: the problem with
entitlements is they are universal. even if you are well off, you're getting the same benefits as low income workers. if you're talking about how to reform entitlements, you need to focus on those truly in need. make them into safety net health careher than and social security for everybody regardless of the success you have had in your career. we should target those programs for those in need. we can raise the age to make sure it does not hit anyone in a way they cannot plan for. there's difference now between from when it started. matthew made the point earlier that those not living past that age are those that are truly low income. i would suggest we should make sure entitlements are taking care of those people that are and start reforming by means testing them away from those that have already.
i think there are reasonable reforms matthew and i could hash out any room negotiating how to improve the future of social security and medicare. our generation is with us. 90% support immediate entitlement reform. it is bankrupting our generation. it is stealing our prosperity to pay for benefits our country can never afford. we need solutions that are necessary and can improve the future of the country. host: can you come together on this one? guest: i'm confident we could come to some solutions. 61% of millenials those cuts to social security -- oppose cuts to social security. when you make a program for low income people, not only is it more likely to be cut but look at the unemployment insurance.
people are literally at the brink of homelessness with it not being extended. the idea of social security is it is a system that everyone pays into and get the benefit out of. host: one more call. richard, florida, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to run something across these young gentlemen. one seems like a republican. the other seems like a democrat. this lies in the problem with all our elected officials is money. everybody, wants to get elected, they are not thinking about a job. they are thinking about getting reelected and stuff. if we took all the money, we would start with the governor, the house, the senate, the presidency.
all the money that goes into each one of those groups is divided evenly. the way they get credit for it is to just say so much was donated to this party and this gentleman or whatever like that. host: richard, thanks. guest: we support campaign finance reform. we support disclosure. when you pour unknown amounts of money into the political process, it makes it less accountable to the broad majority of citizens. any measure to promote less money in the system is generally something we would be supportive of. guest: the only way to limit the flow of money into politics is to make it less profitable to make -- spend your money on politics. we should be choosing winners and losers among corporations by whether they are adding value to customers. the value for most corporations is to pay lobbyists to make sure
they get a special contract from the government. that is not sustainable because moneyill not be adding s to society. we need to make it less of a high-stakes game and return it to individuals who can hire and fire based on whether or not they are creating opportunity. both are from generational groups representing millenials here to talk about issues. this guy is talking about growth and how it will help matters. i don't buy it at all. i don't see how growth will get passed down to employees and customers. it never does. it is in every republican playbook and it never works. i think there is a lot more so a in being a republican
lot more people want to be one. we have a $17 trillion debt. we have got to get rid of it. we are getting no monetary return from anything we do overseas. that is a big problem. we have other big players like russia breathing down our n eck. host: thanks. he brings up the debt. guest: it will quickly approached $20 trillion in debt if the interest rate went to historical levels at 5%, that would be $1 trillion a year just to finance our debt. president obama submitted a speech that his now famous in the congressional record. he never gave the speech. he talked about how it would be irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling. republicans hammered the president saying it would be a failure of leadership to fail to raise the ceiling. that is not the important part of the speech. he gave an eloquent defense of reducing the national debt by
saying every dollar that goes to what he calls a debt tax, interest payments, are dollars that cannot be used for something else. whether you support big government and think it should be education or health care, those dollars cannot go to that because they are being flushed down the drain. if you think those dollars should be given that young americans and we should be able to create and innovate, you should be opposed to a debt tax. it is a huge problem. grams arent probl driving that debt. we need to reform and reduce government spending or we will spend more money on things that provide no value. we need to address that issue. is first and foremost in the minds of millenials. his crippled to the future of our country. -- it is critical to the future of our country. guest: 18% of our budget is
medical costs and will only grow each year. the fact that procedures cost so much money and drugs cost so much money is troubling. the fact we have a system built where doctorsvice are rewarded based on recommending more procedures only inflates costs and encourages a lot of waste in medical spending. that is where we have to target a lot of the focus. is solvent for another 20 years. that is not where the great emphasis should be. the biggest emphasis should be on job creation. there is where you broaden the tax base. it should be on immigration reform. that is where you broaden the tax base. you need revenue to lower the debt. through 17ut our way billion dollars without having
such austerity that people are left without goods and services and there will be a rebellion. you need to have revenue. rich people need to pay a greater percentage of earnings. they have done very well. the stock market is at record highs. we have seen income inequality widen. ceo's are giving themselves raises. the united airlines ceo refused to take a pay cut. he makes $8 million a year while he just cut jobs and lowered them to part-time lower paying jobs. if you took $2 million less in salary, there is evidence he would not have to cut the 600 jobs. that is unacceptable. >> the caller made an excellent point. if boeing is growing, i am not sure the economy is growing. they are just getting more government contracts and taking more from the taxpayer to grow their business. they promote that kind of greed.
there are not a lot of options aside from boeing on jets. if we are going to see real growth in the economy, it needs to be from the bottom up. going from ae uber tiny company to have an $18 billion valuation. it needs to be new ideas coming from power generation. governmently, spending and policy stifles new business starts, particularly among young people. the average age of an entrepreneur is 26. the average age of a successful entrepreneur is 24. when business is down, young people suffer the most. the brookings institute study demonstrated business starts being down is a result of a stagnant economy created by too much government and not enough dynamism in the economy. to combat that stagnation, we need to free the next generation. that means fewer government solutions, less regulation, more
freedom for the next generation. host: got to get calls. alabama, clinton, go ahead. caller: it is exciting to hear these two debating like this. with minimum wage, i have a question. what would be the highest minimum wage you would have and why? the second question is on supply and demand. and oneave one pen million people want it, the price would be whatever the person is asking. andou have one million pens only one person wanting it, it is rubbish. what would you do about decreasing the price of oil? north dakota has a 0% unemployment rate. would you look at all the states
about what is causing people to leave the states as a way of getting employment? guest: i think the first question was on the minimum wage. that is the one i remember most clearly. that raising -- i forget the exact question. i think the point she was making was what about the wage. the highest minimum wage i would support. i think there is a lot of data and $15act that a $10 than wages not going to have a detrimental effect on job loss. somewhere in that range i think is good. if minimum wage kept track with productivity over the last 30 years, it would be about $21. i think you have to incrementally raise the wage. i definitely know with all the profits corporations have and the cash they are sitting on --
guest: why incrementally? you obviously agree there is potential for detriment to the economy, job creation, employment for young americans if we raise the wage to $75. if there is a large effect if you raise it to $75 as the minimum wage, why do you feel it is responsible to continue to raise it and have any impact on youth unemployment? guest: because a couple extra dollars is necessary for the well-being and survival of millions of americans. officegressional budget study showed 15 million americans would be lifted out of poverty by raising the minimum wage. bers ofre a few mem congress who took the minimum wage challenge.
$40 to someone on minimum wage is the difference between being able to afford gasoline and annexed her mail. -- and an extra meal. guest: we agree those dollars are different between new york city and mississippi where the cost of living is lower. guest: i still think by raising the federal minimum wage you create incentive for states to go higher. many states do have a higher one. we have to fight against poverty. we have child labor laws for these reasons. we have basic worker protections. you cannot exploit people and give them nothing. guest: the caller seemed to have a basic grasp of economics and we need to be advocating for policies that will improve the lives of young americans. we cannot ignore that there are certain economic principles and realities. the price of labor is dictated by supply and demand. if we artificially increase the price of labor, there will be less demand for labor. that means fewer jobs offered to
young americans. with a use unemployment crisis today, raising the minimum wage will negatively impact young americans. it is a policy that would be destructive to our demographic. is a few extra dollars in someone's pocket going to go into savings or directly into the economy? guest: i don't think the pile of dollars given to young americans will grow. guest: i am friends with entrepreneurs. no business is going to stop hiring because they have to pay their workers next couple bucks an hour. it will decrease turnover. why did the majority of small business owners support raising the wage? they supported because they know they will reduce turnover and give their workers a better quality of life which will make them more productive and sustainable in the workplace which is good for everyone. guest: this discussion is a
distraction from the fact there is a youth unemployment and economic crisis facing our generation. this debate is a distraction from the fundamental crisis. i fear we will lose millenials overall if we focus on these issues rather than the broader once. host: we have to finish. we appreciate our guests. you heard from evan steinberg, the president of generation opportunity, and matthew segal. i hope you guys come back and debate this more. next, week take a look at the 50-year anniversary at the wilderness act. chase huntley will be our guest for that discussion as "washington journal" continues after this. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] month, c-span presents
debates on what makes america great, evolution, and genetically modified foods. veteranslooks at health care, student loan debt, and campus sexual assault. new perspectives on issues including global warming, voting rights, fighting infectious disease, and food safety. and our history tour showing sights and sounds from america's historic places. find our schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. us. or e-mail join the conversation. like this on facebook. follow us on twitter. , specialeek programming on the c-span networks. monday, a debate over scottish independence. irsday, issue spotlight on
targeting of conservative groups. , mad men night schools on educating children from -- magnet schools. thursday, antipoverty programs. friday night, native american history. week, an2 next discussion about school choice. " how theght at 8:00, poor can save capitalism." wednesday, the author of an autobiography -- biography about neil armstrong. congressmanormer ron paul. on c-span3, monday, the reconstruction here and civil rights. tuesday, the end of war two and the atomic bomb.
wednesday, the anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. thursday, a look at how americans attitudes changed through the course of the war. friday, nasa documentary about the apollo 11 moon landing. find our television schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. twitter or e-mail us. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest, chase huntley, wilderness society. he deals with energy issues for the society. we are here to talk about the wilderness act and its 50th anniversary. what was the wilderness act and what was its purpose? guest: it was signed into law by president johnson in 1954 to protect america's most awe-inspiring wild places and
the human stories that contain. the purpose of the bill was to ensure those places are protected from development and are available for enjoyment today and for future generations. host: when you say wilderness, what do you mean? guest: wilderness is characterized by an absence of human presence. what makes a wilderness wild is of lack of roads, a lack noise and light pollution that comes with industrial activity, lack of development. they are places where people can go to find themselves, to renew and regenerate. they are also places that support wildlife habitats and provide clean air and water for us. there places where people go to re-create. host: like a national park or reserve? are they synonymous? guest: wilderness is an additional layer of protection we can find in all four of the .ands managed
managed not by the hand of man but by the natural processes in place. they coexist within a bigger landscape of protections and uses. wilderness is most important and noteworthy because it exists in contrast to the working lands and other uses we enjoy on our public lands. think what is important and misunderstood his willingness -- isderness founded by the act our public lands, but there are wild places everywhere in america in our backyard. host: even the government has its own definition of what a wilderness is. it is areas where the earth is left unchanged. it is a bit of the definition. you heard a bit about the act. if you want to learn more about
the wilderness act and how it protects federal lands, here's your chance to comment and ask questions of our guest. here are the numbers by time zone. our guest is with the wilderness society. what is the society? guest: the society was created in 1935 with the purpose of protecting wilderness and inspiring americans to care for wild places. it was born of a debate among conservationists about the value of roads being built into many of america's fledgling national parks. it was decided well roads are important and we need to ensure access for americans, road still need to be everywhere. in setting aside places and managing them. comprise less than 3% of the total land-based grade one of many tools we can use to make sure our natural heritage is passed down to future
generations. they play an increasingly important role as the world closes in around us. there places we can go to escape from the daily grind. as we spend more time in front of screens, some studies suggest adults spend 11 hours today. youth have less than 30 minutes of unstructured playtime outside. places like wilderness are essential escapes from the modern-day era. host: how many acres are covered by the act? guest: 9 million were put into the national wilderness preservation system when the act was passed. over the past 50 years, the act has been wildly successful. we have seen 100 million acres added. those bills have come with bipartisan support. wilderness has always been a .ost a nonpartisan issue we have seen time and again
lands conservation priorities and especially wilderness resonate and they have moved forward. the last two congresses have been a bit of an exception. host: wilderness areas protected, by the concentrated mostly in the western part of the united states? guest: with confined wilderness areas in 44 of the 50 states. the majority of the acres are in alaska. not surprisingly since the state itself is 2/3 of the lower 48. wilderness areas are increasingly accessible. we need to extend the opportunity to more americans. aremajority of americans within a days drive or less of a wilderness area. majority of the acreage is found on public lands principally found in the western united states. you may find yourself in a state that has a large amount of wilderness protected by the wilderness act. the wilderness society, our
huntley, whose deals with energy issues. when land is protected, what is the burden on the state? is it all managed by the federal government as far as upkeep and protection? guest: wilderness as designated district on public land. there is no burden on states or localities. we found management obligations are not funded as well as they used to be as congress sees fit to decline budgets for conservation funding and land management. more of the burden is being borne by citizens, folks like in and me, nonprofit groups, some cases state and local groups that make up part of the 21st century conservation corps, the modern version of roosevelt's conservation corps. they are increasingly shouldering the burden for the trails and infrastructure to make sure these lands are protected for us. host: the first call is from
john from new york. caller: i am curious if the wilderness act was inspired by international models or if it has inspired other international models around the world. guest: that is a great question. part of what makes the wilderness act so important and unique is it was the first time any government in the world has ever saw fit to extend protections and management of wild places for the wildness. and 50 years since the act was passed, we have seen a number of nations and states pass their own. with the wilderness act was thei first and remains the model for other nations to use. host: margie is next from birmingham, alabama. go ahead. caller: my question is not about wilderness out of the city. what about when you live in an
area like i do on top of a mountain where i am one of the few houses and there's wilderness around and all kind of wild animals? i have a flat rock where i feed the animals. my neighbors across from me do not like the idea that you feed the animals. were do you do when you move into a place where wild animals live and nobody wants to feed them? i don't understand it. i am sorry. i do feed the wild animals. i have everything come up to my yard. what do you do? how do you protect those kind of animals? guest: i appreciate your love of nature. we found more americans are moving closer to our wild places. as technology allows us to move , our growing population is finding its way closer to national parks and national forests and ultimately wild places.
i think that speaks to what is so important about wilderness and nature to americans. it is what forged our character. this country was built on of wild places. it continues to attract us back to it. we see housing values are always higher the closer you get to protected places. we see there are much higher quality-of-life surveys for those that live near wild places. increasingly, firms are seeing that is a source of economic benefit to employees by locating closer to the wild places in nature. host: cathy is from california joining us from fremont. caller: i have a couple questions. i just went by mount shasta this week. i'm wondering if that is a wilderness area and where some of the others are. the other question i have is, how does this relate to the water problems in california and other places? host: would you describe
yourself as someone who frequents these wilderness areas or natural parks and things like that? caller: i am sorry. what did you say? host: do you visit wilderness areas and natural -- national parks frequently? caller: no, i think i live near one, coyote hills. i am not sure it is a wilderness area but it is protected by the federal government. i used to as a child though. guest: thanks so much. for caller gets to an important distinction. there are many places with different levels of protection with wilderness being the highest level of protection. there's a good chance you are living near a wilderness area. i encourage you and other viewers to visit our website to get a list and description of the wild places that have already been protected as well as the two dozen we are seeking to protect in this
congress. the caller gets at an important attribute of wild places having to do with water. as we see water resources shrink and what the economic consulates are in the western united states as climate change changes precipitation patterns, wild areas are becoming increasingly important. wilderness areas are the source of drinking water for major cities. los angeles, new york, atlanta, phoenix, just to name a few. the value of clean drinking water that comes from protected risk of being fouled by pollution is increasingly important. be forced service estimates the waters thelue of the national forest system provides of around $3.7 billion annually with wilderness being at the core of those headwater streams. host: somerset new jersey, jennifer, hello. caller: i wanted to make a
comment about the wilderness act being a federal act. the last comment, the caller to leave these decisions to governors and states would be disastrous, special were governor christie is concerned and would love to build on national wildlife preserves for our bird species and migrating species. it cannot be left up to governors. governors and people that allocate money for preservation are quite greedy and would rather see complexes than birds. keep our ecosystem alive which benefits everybody.
guest: when congress passed the was the story of how it created is important because it gives to one of the caller's points, it took nearly a decade from inception to passage. the gentleman widely credited as the author of the act, then director of the wilderness society, spent a decade drafting more than 66 different versions of the bill, shoveling it through 18 different rational hearings. unfortunately, left us before the act was signed into law. in the course of that significant deliberation, one thing congress and the public saw fit to do was to put the power of designated wilderness areas in the hands of the people, not governors or the president. wilderness can only be created by congress. the wilderness society spends a great deal of our time working in local communities with stakeholder
groups out frequenting these places. it is remarkable how connected people are two places they live next to an places from their youth. the act includes not just the creation of the wilderness preservation system but a provision that allows any citizen to work with the member of congress to seek additional protection for places worth protecting. host: bridget is from montana. you are on with chase huntley from the wilderness society. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about, there is much discussion on states taking over federal land and putting it under state jurisdiction. my fear is eventually they could sell it to the highest bidder. what is your opinion? guest: we agree public land should remain public and have grave concerns about recent proposals in state legislatures
and discussed on capitol hill about turning public lands over to state management and state control or selling them off. in our view, our public lands are our national heritage. they were created when the states joined the union under provisions of the constitution and remain managed by the federal government for the benefit of all of us who have a stake. what is most important in our view when we think about the values out there is to make sure they are being managed so every acre is being put to its best use. in many cases, the wilderness society is working with developers to find the right places for activities while ensuring we can strike a balance with the conservation we need. we are very interested and think the current federal framework is the best way to strike that balance and make sure we are leaving a strong conservation legacy for our children. host: mike up next from albany,
new york. caller: i have a quick question. i am new to firearms and shooting sports. it is my understanding you can use wilderness areas and national forest to shoot as long as you are taking reasonable accommodations like a backstop and being of trails. -- is thatviable use a viable use of lands in your opinion? target shooting is permissible on many of our lands. there are accommodations made by the forest service for users interested in finding out where those activities can be undertaken and what precautions need to be put in place. you can visit the websites for those agencies. act has a deep rooting in hunting in particular. most of the founding fathers of
and mostrness society of the champions of the wilderness act were outdoorsmen, they were sportsmen, hunters. hunting is one of the most common and one of the most foromically beneficial uses communities located near wilderness areas because they are premier wildlife habitats so ract hunters every year. hunters have become strong champions for protecting wild places. it is one of many tools we have. are supplemented by other conservation strategies that also make sure other compatible uses can be folded in. host: groups like the american petroleum institute put out information on development on government lands.
federal governments hold an -- federalf governments hold a lot of minerals. guest: there is a tremendous amount of public land available for energy development. policies that have been more lenient than we would like to see have created a problem of excess, not access. there are more drilling permits in the hands of the oil companies tha are being utilizedn. recently, we have seen companies put forward fewer nominations for lance. the lands they dominate -- nominate -- we have a glut in the national -- natural gas market. we think it is important responsible energy development of several uses that coexists with conservation areas. protecting places americans love
need not come at the end of -- at the expense of developing energy we need. we can guide development where they do not conflict with areas of high recreation value or places people want to see protected. we are working with stakeholders and industry and conservation partners provided comments to the interior department who is moving forward with reforms on how oil and gas is developed to reduce the conflict that has characterized energy development over the years. without the benefit of those policies to guide development, we are at risk of wasting time in litigation debating over which places are appropriate. a think protecting places is great guidepost for and not a hint of mint to energy -- and not a hindrance to energy development. host: go-ahead.
caller: he just touched on the topic i called about. would it be considered wilderness is the marsalis shale people are permitted to go in and drove wherever they want? thank you. guest: the responsible energy development is a hot topic for land management. the marsalis shale formation is not public land, at least not mostly. throughes are working how best to move forward with processes. on public land, energy development has been a use, in some cases a dominant use for nearly a century. what we are most interested in promoting is protection of wild places so we don't have the kind of conflict we have seen on public lands that randy is alluding to.
one of the exciting developments we have been engaged in recently under the oil and gas leasing reforms i referred to his development of a tool called the master leasing plan which will seem like common sense to most viewers. most cities and states have zoning plans that determine where certain activities are permissible and not. public land managers are just now turning to an developing tools that can allow them to do that with stakeholder input working with industry and stakeholders. we have seen one of those tools move forward in wyoming with some success. we have seen that idea move forward even further outside of moab. it is a common sense approach and one we hope we can see more of. host: here is eddie from north carolina. hi. caller: how are you doing?
we are protecting wildlife and land. wind farms are destroying and forcingbirds them to migrate. the bald eagle is protected. it kills hundreds of them every year. or do you feel about that? isst: one thing that important to understand is no form of energy development including coal or wind and solar, none of those energy resources are impact free. we do know what climate scientists have been telling us for nearly a decade and we are beginning to see every day when we look out our windows the changing weather patterns and in
the climate that we have to make a significant shift away from heavily polluting fuels. wind and solar are going to be one important piece of that. we need to do more with the energy we produce. we are going to need more new energy resources. some are going to be able to be placed on existing infrastructure like homes and businesses where we can put solar panels. but there are real advantages to large-scale wind and solar facilities as well. they are not impact free. hopefully we can take what we have learned from oil and gas to element over the past 75 years and build smarter policies that allow us to guide those projects away from places where we will see significant conflicts with and otherles resources americans hold dear and are protected under federal law. the bureau of land management finalized the plan two years ago we think is capable of doing that. the western silver plan identified 17 zones which can
provide a significant amount of solar energy resource. for those areas need to be refined. that idea needs to be applied to other forms of energy. chase huntley, thanks for your time. tomorrow, a discussion on race relations. that starts at 8:00. we will take your calls and look at the papers as well as "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. we will see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] an>>