Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  April 7, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT

7:00 am
later, a conversation with tom rosenstiel about the "rolling stone" and uva rape story. you can follow on facebook and twitter. host: good morning, everyone. we will begin with rand paul's official bid. he will launch officially in his home state of kentucky. taking his campaign on the road to iowa, new hampshire, nevada and south carolina. the senator plans to get on the primary ballot in all 50 states. we will begin with your thoughts on senator rand paul and his presidential ambitions. the numbers are on the screen.
7:01 am
also a fourth line this morning for those that supported rand paul's father, ron paul, when he did his presidential bid three times. do you now support his son? we want to hear from you. you can also send us a tweet or a comment at facebook, or send us an e-mail. the phone lines are open. i want to send you that show you a tweet the senator sent out yesterday. he said, after my speech tomorrow i'll be using it -- and doing a little queue and day to take your questions. -- doing a little q&a to take your questions. also using this video to treat his campaign.
7:02 am
♪ [video clip] ♪ >> there are probably few candidates for 2016 that are more interesting that rand paul. >> rand paul has been the most consistently principled person. >> senator from kentucky might be the candidate who ends up winning this thing. >> he's got organization in all 50 states. he's got african-americans taking a look at him. >> defense washington, we cannot have business as usual. congress should read every bill. [applause] congress should also live under the laws they back. if they won't listen, we should limit their turns and -- their terms and send the career politicians packing. >> senator rand paul filibustered yesterday from 13
7:03 am
hours on the senate lore. senator paul showed stamina, passion, and many americans can admire. >> he's using the filibuster the way it is meant to be used. >> liberal policies have failed our inner cities. >> i want to talk to you about your trip to detroit this week where you oh didn't desperate you opened the first of what will be republican outreach enters in -- where you opened the first of what will be republican outreach centers in inner cities. >> i think it says something about the republican party. rand paul: we need to stand up for the entire bill of rights. our future can include prosperity at home and abroad. it should include a balanced
7:04 am
budget and a simple tax system. it should include a government that protects your rights and your security. it should include a stronger better, more agile military. it's time for a new way. a new set of ideas. a new leader, one you can trust one who works for you, and above all, it's time for a new president. [applause] [cheers and applause] host: that was freshman senator rand paul's youtube announcement yesterday ahead of his official announcement today in louisville, kentucky. by the way, the senator changing his twitter account from senator rand paul to just rand paul.
7:05 am
@randpaul is his new twitter handle now. the senator giving a speech at a ballroom in kentucky, and as we said, he will make a fly around to the early primary caucus state, i will, new hampshire new data and south carolina. we are getting your thoughts. what do you think about this? the numbers are on the screen. by the way, a fourth line this morning set aside for those who supported his father. as many of you know, the congressman ron paul ran for president in 1988 as a libertarian, and then as a republican in 2008 and 2012. so now does that passion for the father translate to his son? we want to hear from you on all of that.
7:06 am
that fourth line is for those who supported ron paul in the past. let me show you the washington times front page this morning. "rand paul begins quest for white house." what are your thoughts on that this morning? and the washington times says this.
7:07 am
aj in baton rouge, louisiana, an independent, what do you think about senator rand paul? caller: i did not have very much that about him until very recently, mainly due to his lack of ethics variant. because i'm very concerned about lack of experience because of we
7:08 am
have in the white house right now. my god, no experience, obama didn't even show up for votes when he was a senator. at least rand paul did show up and vote most of the time. i'm going to take a closer look at him. i was going to support perry but i will take a look at palmore. host: would you support a democrat? caller: no, no way. host: why not? caller: god, the world is on fire everywhere due to these folks we've got in there now. no, no way i support a democrat. host: have you in the past, aj? caller: oh, yes, i voted for carter host:. host:what about clinton? caller: no. host: no.
7:09 am
richard, what do you think about senator rand paul? caller: if he does what he says he's going to do, he would be fine. it's like they always say with a going to do and then once they get in, they have no say really, because you've got the congress, the senate. it just goes around and around. it's a shame, because our country has really turned into chaos. it is, and utterly hates each other, the black them otherwise, the republican, the democrat. i don't know what's going to go on, but that's my comment credit. host: all right, richard. that fourth line for those of you that have supported ron paul, senator rand paul's father in the past and his presidential bid, does that passion translate from father to son?
7:10 am
jonathan easley's with the hill newspaper. let's talk more about the announcement today. senator rand paul in louisville, kentucky. how is it that he can run for both the presidency and a second term for senate? jonathan: --guest: he's got a nice little backup plan. it seems like the state party is open and moving forward to give him a workaround that he will need to run for the white house and the senate simultaneously. yes, he had to go through the state party to set that up, but it appears they set it on the path to achieve that for him. host: what is his campaign message? guest: rand paul will be running on -- he's touting himself at
7:11 am
the different kind of republican. he's saying he has been reaching out to some of these groups that republicans, he says, have ignored. he has met with black leaders in ferguson, missouri. he has gone to inner cities in detroit and atlanta and talked at length about how he is reaching out to black voters that are typically loyal to democrats. he is also reaching out to young voters. there is always -- already a solid base of young voters that like his libertarian message and he thinks he can build on that. he is making the argument that he is the most selectable republican to face likely hillary clinton in the general election. host: how has he been doing so far, and why make this announcement now? explain the timing. guest: well, he's going to be, really, only the second major
7:12 am
candidate in the party to enter the race. ted cruz a couple of weeks ago became the first person to officially enter the field. by being the second, i think you can still build quite a bit of energy by getting in so early. ted cruz got a pretty significant bump in the polls by just being that first candidate in. he will get a lot of support from that. and basically, any candidate not named jeb bush will need to focus quite a bit on pulling in some major donors. this will give him some time to focus on that fundraising. paul's supporters have a money bond to coincide with the launch. he will do well with his grassroots donors. but it legitimate candidate will need to raise about $50 million by next march.
7:13 am
it will require a good deal of work. you will have to be in silicon valley appealing to some of these in younger executives that have a libertarian streak. all that requires time, and by being the second candidate in, in april, it will generate buzz, and he will be admired over the pack of republican candidates right now in the polls. if you get the same boost that ted cruz does, this could launch him into the top tier of republican candidates. host: are there others that are contenders, or folks that are thinking about getting in, they watching rand paul? do they consider him a serious challenger? guest: yeah, absolutely. rand paul has probably the most complicated white house bid.
7:14 am
republican strategists say he has as much range as anybody and in some of these early voting dates they don't how he could do. he could run the table on the first four carveout states, or he could be more like his father and only appeals to this base of libertarian, conservative minded -- libertarian minded conservatives. he could build some momentum by putting in some showings or not winning in the first four state. or he could fall flat. it will be interesting to see which one of those scenarios will play out. host: jonathan easley, he plans to be on the ballot in all 50 states. does he have the infrastructure and organization to make that happen? guest: if they are planning on doing that, he better.
7:15 am
i think he probably does have a nice structure base that is left behind -- a nice days of infrastructure that is left behind from his father. that may not be enough to pull off the strategy cannot but he's -- the strategy, but he's going to need to win. i think probably more important it is probably a symbolic gesture as well. it is not in the long run going to be that important, how he does in the south dakota caucuses, or primaries let's say. but he's pitching himself as the candidate that is looking to expand the party and by doing that, he needs to be as inclusive as possible, and that means a 58 strategy for him. whereas -- a 50-state strategy for him. whereas some of these other candidates may be all in on new
7:16 am
hampshire and then seeing how it plays out from there. rand paul, we know more about his campaign and what is going to look like than any other candidate, and it dovetails nicely with the fact that he's looking to grow the party and that he is also looking to play in all 50 states. host: jonathan easley of the hill, thank you. let's go to gym in south carolina. you supported ron paul in his previous presidential bid. what do you think of his son senator rand paul? caller: i appreciate the opportunity to be on c-span. i haven't been in a long, long time. i voted for ron paul several times and i did not have any one exciting or interesting in the republican party. i have never voted democrat in my life. i would say rand paul, i hope he would be a good conservative libertarian, if there is such a thing.
7:17 am
that is to say, a more old-fashioned republican leaning libertarian, because there are certain things in libertarian party that i don't endorse. i guess i'm lower case "l" libertarian. host: ok, what do you think about those hawks in the party that do not think rand paul is a good idea because they are worried america will be perceived as weak? caller: i'm glad you mentioned that, because i've never heard of jonathan, the man that is posing as an authority on things. what happens there, a lot of people, listeners if they are not informed, use that information and it is wrong. it is misleading and i do not pay attention to anything except the candidates. host: ok, let's go to mark next
7:18 am
democratic caller. caller: i want to say that i supported obama in 2008 and governor romney in 2012. i'm definitely open to candidate on all sides. i support senator rand paul in kentucky. i think he will lead america in a different direction. i'm just tired of clinton and bush and i don't think either one of those candidates need to lead. host: who do you want to see challenge on the democratic side? caller: i don't know that many can challenge in 2016. into that thousand eight, they had an opportunity to elect a woman president, or even vice president with hillary clinton and they didn't do that. i really don't inc. hillary clinton is going -- think hillary clinton is going to win this time around.
7:19 am
and i just don't want jeb bush to win the nominee. host: let's say it is hillary clinton versus rand paul. do you think she can beat rand paul? caller: no, with what happen in benghazi and now her e-mails, it shows a lack of leadership on her side. i think her biggest chance was in 2008 and that time has passed. i think rand paul can win in 2016. host: ok, jones in capital heights, maryland. democratic caller. caller: good morning. they were saying that rand paul did some outreach to the black community. i was wondering what he did. he was at the university about a month the go and it look like about 150 people out there.
7:20 am
these guys don't ever put anything in writing or you can see what they say. they just run around the country yelling "vote for me!" we've got 10 or 20 people that want to be president, but i can see less than five that would probably will five. host: as the previous caller was talking about, there are questions about whether or not rand paul would be like his father ron paul, and be an isolationist. the senator wrote an op-ed and say he would not be an awesome -- and isolationist. but the defense hawks do not trust him on this issue. senator lindsey graham justice past sunday on cbs's face the nation was talking about the iran negotiations and how rand paul factors into this. [video clip] senator graham: obama is a flawed negotiator. people in the region do not trust him and the iranians do
7:21 am
not fear or respective, so we will never be of the get the best deal. the vessel comes with the new president. hillary clinton would do better. i think everybody on our side would do better, except rand paul. we need a new president that does not have the package of obama. host: senator lindsey graham, considered a defense hawks there, questioning senator rand paul's foreign policy. another defense, senator john mccain to formally announce his reelection bid today, the same day rand paul will announce his presidential bid.
7:22 am
that happening this morning as well and were getting your thoughts on senator rand paul, his 2016 campaign today. the first-term senator will then travel around to the early primary and caucus states. what are your thoughts on his presidential ambitions? we've divided the lines between democrats, republicans, an independent, and the fourth line is for those who have supported his father in his past attempts. i want to show you the conservative leader of the family research council. he was c-span newsmaker guest this past sunday and here's what he had to say about senator rand paul running for president. [video clip] >> rand paul is in a different pastor, whether it is foreign policy -- pasture, whether it is foreign policy or other topics. i don't see him as reflective of
7:23 am
where the republican party is going to be. is there an element of republican leaning voters that follow and listen to rand paul? absolutely but i don't feel it as any clear indication as to where the party may be. host: social conservative turning perkins -- tony perkins talking there. if you miss the program, he weighed in on the indiana religious freedom law. you can go to for the whole thing. good morning, john. your thoughts on senator rand paul running for president? caller: well, i really don't know too much about him, like the rest of them. what gets me is this isolation business all the time. you can look at the worst foreign-policy disasters like going into iraq, and the old -- the whole mess in the middle east designed by the conservatives. if we were not going into iraq
7:24 am
they will be yelling isolationism. i would not pay any attention to them. host: the has a recent interview with him, a q and a. i will give you some answers. the federalist website, the to see more of that. what do you think about senator rand paul? guest: i am a registered
7:25 am
democrat and i voted democrat my whole life. i'm 57 years old. and i'm actually looking at rand paul. host: why is that? caller: we need something interesting. i'm sick of the democrats. they don't do anything. and i'm african-american, too. that's really strange, i know. my father is probably turning over in his grave. but i voted democrat all my life and i think the democrats have really taken african-american voters for granted. and i definitely will not vote for hillary clinton. i don't want anything to do with the clintons anymore. i think they ought to just move on. host: will you give money to senator rand paul's campaign? caller: yeah, a small amount. i'm not well-to-do.
7:26 am
but yeah, i would give him 50 bucks. host: and in chicago, democrat, said she will now support senator rand paul. jim garrity, a national review editor, he tweeted this out yesterday. senator rand paul following up after senator ted cruz announced his they did last week. his bid last week. and senator marco rubio could announce his 2016 bit, and any day, hillary clinton could be announcing her attention to run. by the way, and new and new eastern time in louisville kentucky, we will have senator rand paul's announcement here on c-span. his father will attend his residential campaign launch. that is from bloomberg's website , reporting that the former congressman and presidential
7:27 am
contender who ran three times will be at that event today. carl, chicago, democrat caller. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. how are you? rand paul is basically his father's son. what he does is, he's very astute at obfuscating the true nature of libertarianism. if you really turned him down, you will find out he's not going to discount what his father says and that is where his downfall will be. libertarianism does not work will stop -- does not work. that would be like saying, let cap bernie sanders. i like bernie sanders, but i know his social views won't work either. he is obfuscating what the
7:28 am
libertarianism. he does it very well, but he is. libertarian and that does not work today. host: all right, carl. this from the "new york times" this morning. the center has arranged to use a charter flight to bring his father in tuesday morning. also in the papers this morning from the "washington post," that senator marco rubio of florida plans to declare himself a gop
7:29 am
candidate on april 13. itthe "washington post" this morning reporting about how these candidates decide to make these announcements. senator ted cruz announced last week. he's already out with his first campaign ad. take a look at this. [video clip] ted cruz: were it not for the transformative love of jesus christ i would have been raised by a single mother without my
7:30 am
father. god's blessings on america from the beginning of this nation over and over again where he faced impossible, and the american people rose to the challenge. this is our fight and that is why i'm running for president of the united states. i'm ted cruz and i approved this message. host: senator cruz's first campaign ad. he was able to raise $4 million in that first week. stephen from indiana you supported ron paul, senator rand paul's father. do you now support his son? caller: no, i do not. host: no, i -- why not? caller: ron paul was a libertarian with conservative tendencies. rand paul is a conservative with the brazilian tendencies. -- with libertarian tender tendencies. before calling him an
7:31 am
isolationist and he strikes me as more big government and big military than his father ever was. his father was never an isolationist. he espoused the same policy that the founding fathers espoused and i could support that. i never hear anything from the republican side that does anything close to what ron paul and the founding fathers were saying. therefore, i could never support any republican candidate, and unfortunately at this time, i cannot support rand paul. host: bob in connecticut, go ahead. caller: good morning. i think rand paul said simply put our problem right on the nose and no one's doing anything about it. the other thing is, once a week someone asks what our greatest threat is to our country. and i think either isis or are
7:32 am
administration. both of them are going to be destroying our way of life here. host: that was bob in new hartford connecticut a republican. we are getting your thoughts on senator rand paul and his announcing his bid from louisville, kentucky today. we will give you coverage of that at new. while we wait for more calls to come in, here is the tallahassee democrat, the front page. he once medicaid and medicare services to give about $1 billion in hospital funds, but the feds have been denying that
7:33 am
were rest for about a year standing firm that the funds will and june 30. and now the front page of the chicago tribune, "now with the voters turn." deciding who will be the next mayor of chicago. that is courtesy of the museum. -- the new sweum. here is a story about the export import bank. it is the debate that has been happening on capitol hill for a while. whether or not to extend this independent agency. the deadline is july 1. this is a story by boeing and delta. -- about boeing and delta.
7:34 am
those two, boeing and delta fighting over the existence of this agency. also from the front page of the washington times on iran negotiations, bob corker featured in this piece by ashley parker and peter baker. and the "new york -- excuse me "wall street journal" with this headline that israel is weighing
7:35 am
in on this framework for a deal with iran. and the wall street journal writes that what israel wants put into this agreement. that is what israel wants, weighing in with what they would like to see come out of any sort of deal. the final details, the administration hopes, will be worked out by june. also another foreign policy news this morning, here is the "new york times." refugees in syria are starting according to the united nations. and the united nations is calling on the united states and
7:36 am
other countries to put pressure on the government there to allow peacekeepers in to provide food and medicine. also in the "financial times" this morning with a story and picture next to the headline again easily as saudi's failed to halt rebels. it's a growing humanitarian crisis for residents that find themselves in central districts. a growing crisis in yemen as the fight continues in the country. we are getting your thoughts on senator rand paul announcing his campaign today in louisville kentucky. and about other 2016 contenders take a look at jeb bush's suite
7:37 am
-- tweet he sent out yesterday. referring to the story in the papers today, the headline in "usa today." he said he not hispanic, but in 2009 on his voter registration he marked the hispanic box. david and lafayette indiana you supported ron paul in the past. what do you think of his son? caller: i absolutely support him, and i supported his father. i normally either vote straight republican or straight libertarian. for me it is a win-win either way. host: all right david. a couple more headlines for you.
7:38 am
tom star going after republican candidates on climate change and linking them to the koch brothers. the koch brothers for their part, the front page of the houston chronicle this morning, they are starting a latino voter initiative. that is the front page of the houston chronicle. they will be trying to get latinos to come out and vote for republicans. rand paul, the latest to launch a bid for the white house. he will do so today. that announcement yesterday --
7:39 am
he teased that announcement yesterday on youtube. senator marco rubio could do so next week and hillary clinton could do it on the democratic side any day now. here is a headline, chris christie to embark on first major 2016 to work in new hampshire. he will tour that state at the eyes of potential bid as well. and hillary clinton, here's the financial times as morning. -- this morning. in the financial times they write, and -- they write this.
7:40 am
we will be getting your thoughts on 2016, and specifically senator rand paul announcing his it today. the numbers are on the screen. and again, that fourth line this morning set aside for those of you that supported ron paul, senator rand paul -- senator ron paul's past presidential bids. ron, calling from morgan field kentucky. what do you think of your senator and his evidential ambitions -- presidential ambitions? caller: i would vote for rand paul. i'm all for a young face instead
7:41 am
of the same old same old. host: what do you think of what he's done? caller: he has not done much but it is still a fresh face. instead of bush hillary, you know. host: full said that about then senator barack obama, and now some say a little too fresh of a safe and not a lot of experience, and now they are looking for somebody with more experience. caller: welcome i guess a lot of people didn't buy into barack obama. -- well, i guess a lot of people did buy into barack obama. i didn't. still, i want fresh face in office. i'm tired of the bushes hillary. host: what about ted cruz or marco rubio? caller: i like ted cruz and
7:42 am
rubio, because they are both young, fresh faces. ted cruz just scares the heck out of me. and i guess i'm a tea party are like he is, but he seems really radical. host: give me an example of what you think is really radical. caller: he will start talking and he will start talking about doing away with obamacare, which i am for. but he just has a way about him and he seems like he's kind of on the ruthless side. host: the front page of the "washington times" has a story about scott walker, who could be a potential 2016 contender, saying he has reversed himself on immigration. the wisconsin governor has become the latest potential candidate to tailor his position on immigration.
7:43 am
bill in boyertown, pennsylvania, a republican who had ported ron paul -- supported ron paul for president in the past. give us your thoughts. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. of course i support rand paul. ron paul laid the groundwork for the mobilization in place. i think they can get on all the ballots. it's very interesting. there are people in the republican party, lindsey graham, coming out and trying to diss rand paul. let's face it, if you are for more, they go out and get one of these republican run of the will -- if you are for war then go out and get one of these republican run-of-the-mill. more war more bailouts. if you want a guy that takes a we collect in taxes, spend it
7:44 am
here, takes less money from people, then that is what rand paul is standing for. he's not for this big international empire, which is what his father talked about all the time. you know, the one thing i would say is if you are a democrat and you are fed up with both republicans and the democrats, then rand paul is the guy you want to look for. if you go with a rubio ticket or something like that, the last poll looked at who has the best ability to beat hillary clinton, and i think it's rand paul. host: all right, have you already contributed? caller: i don't have huge resources, but i relied today money -- realized today money is a big part of doing some unelected, and i'm prepared to put money behind it. host: i want to share this
7:45 am
headline with you. a frat at the university of virginia plans to sue rolling stone over the article that the magazine has now retracted and apologize for. we will have you all weighing in on that in the last hour of the "washington journal," and to your thoughts on the rolling stone article. the columbia school of journalism did a report that they released on sunday, looking at what went wrong and rolling stone. and because of that story rolling stone officially apologizing to the university of virginia, to the fraternity, and to its readers. we will have you all weighing in on that bit later. i also want to show you the politicos reporting on these iran negotiations. senator chuck schumer has the backing of harry reid and the senate. that legislation will go to the
7:46 am
foreign relations committee next week and possibly to the florida after that. -- to the floor after that. donna, a supporter of ron paul, -- don, a supporter of ron paul, go ahead with your thoughts. caller: i heard them talking about ted cruz. it just seems to me that i liked ron paul, except he wouldn't defend himself. i think his son, rand, is the same way. i think he is too timid. i'm looking for ted cruz because these people say they are frightened of him, but he stands the hind the constitution. -- behind the constitution. host: all right, an independent who supported ron paul in the past. we will leave the conversation therefore now and coming up next, we will be talking to nancy cook of washington journal
7:47 am
and switch topics and talk about the long-term unemployed. and later, senator rand paul is announcing his run for the white house. we will talk to sheila come help -- sheila krumholz from the center for responsible -- responsive politics. but first, a discussion yesterday on raising wages for low-wage workers in this country. here is a little bit of monday's event. [video clip] >> the argument is, you pay a little more, you get a little better. and this is by no means a new argument, the way to -- that economists refer to a generally under the rubric of the efficiency wage theory. it is a theory, like all economic theories, that first surfaced in marshall, and later on in fact, some of its most important champions were our current said chair, janet
7:48 am
yellen, and her husband and prizewinner. we are always thinking about incentives. the claim is, if we are paying you better in your current job you value being in your current job more, and a fat is the case, you want to minimize the possibility that -- if that is the case you want to minimize the muslim that you will lose that job, so you will work hard. that is the minimum version of the claim of what you want to do in paying your workers more. it has come up with a bunch of different margins than what we write down necessarily in the economic -- the different economic models. the claim is, if you pay a little more, you are likely to get quality workers coming to your firm. the interesting thing with what is happening right now with mcdonald's and walmart and the like all suggesting they're willing to pay higher wages, it
7:49 am
is to the advantage of those firms. there are low skilled workers that would rather earn $10 an hour then eight dollars an hour. my guess is that many of those workers are going to at that -- to aetna. host: if you missed it, go to our website we will be talking about the economy now with nancy cook. she is the economic and fiscal correspondent here with national journal, here to talk about the long-term unemployed. let's begin with the definition of what that means to be long-term unemployed. guest: sure, that just means that someone has been out of week -- out of work for 20 weeks or more. at the height of the recession there were over 6 million people who were considered long-term unemployed. that number has dropped. in most recent numbers, that's only 2.6 alien -- 2.6 million.
7:50 am
but it's still about 30%, and that is higher than it has been in past recessions. it is a phenomena and that we are seeing more and more than in past recessions. host: jobless for 27 weeks or more. how much more are people being employed beyond those seven -- those 27 weeks? guest: some have been employed for a year. some have got new jobs and then gotten laid off again. this is a phenomena and that is hitting -- a phenomenaon that is hitting older workers. there was a piece they came out that talks about older workers being hit hard by this. and there were certain -- there were some bureau of labor statistics that talked about workers over 50 ended being a huge problem. host: why is it impacting older workers?
7:51 am
guest: if you were laid off at the height of the recession, regardless of your educational background, it was harder to get a job at the height of the recession in 2009 or 2010. even if you had a masters degree, the likelihood of you getting a job after five months or six months was hard. a lot of people became long-term unemployed that way. and once you are long-term unemployed, studies show that employers discriminate against these people and say, what is wrong with these people? why can't they get a job? is a vicious cycle. host: we divided the lines of little bit differently this morning to talk to viewers who have been unemployed. we are doing it like this. we have aligned if you are employed. if you have been recently unemployed, another line.
7:52 am
and the long-term unemployed, we want to hear from you as well. all others have another line. the numbers are on the screen. we will get to those calls in just a moment. the bureau of labor statistics also put together these numbers that blacks and asians are more likely to be part of this long-term unemployed. why is that? guest: i think people don't have great numbers for why that is. if you look at the end of limit numbers for the most recent data that came out friday came a black have a higher rate of employment -- that came out friday, blacks have a higher rate of unemployment overall. you can also see that with teenagers being disproportionately unemployed. the bureau of labor statistics research that came out recently laid out the demographics.
7:53 am
another interesting data feeds from that report, 2007, 2008, even if you college degree which is typically a harbinger of getting a better job, that was not the case among the long-term unemployed. it did not matter what level of education you had. you could still fall into that. and -- host: in 2014, more than one in 10 unemployed were jobless for 99 weeks or longer. if you are long-term unemployed, it was for 99 weeks or longer. i thought we were out of a recession and into recovery. guest: a lot of people feel that way. even if you look at the most recent numbers from friday, the economy only added 126,000 jobs. i feel like people are unsure if the economy is getting better or not, and they are right to feel
7:54 am
that way. we will have one month where the economy is adding over 200,000 jobs, which is great and we feel like we're on track. and the next month 126 thousand, which is way below what even economists expected. the economic recovery, we are years out from there technical recession, but we are still in what i want to call a hangover from that. people are not necessarily finding work and wages are not rising. if you have been caught in this cycle of being out of work for 27 weeks or more, you definitely do not feel like the economy is getting better. host: what help do these people get during the recession? what help are the long-term unemployed getting now? guest: during the recession, they received emergency benefits, and that was something that congress passed again and again. there were benefits that would kick in. and now, congress has let those expire, so those are not
7:55 am
available anymore. and what is happening state to state, a lot of states are passing a number of restrictive state laws about the number of weeks of unemployment that people can collect. this has happened in kansas recently. the state legislature address this. north carolina has done this. you are seeing it state-by-state, policymakers really taking that into account. and that means not even just for the long-term unemployed, but anyone who finds themselves out of work, they will not be getting as generous benefits. host: let's hear from joe in florida, unemployed for 27 weeks. tell us your story. caller: unemployment is a factor since republicans [indiscernible] we have millions of americans
7:56 am
unemployed because employers want to hire cheap labor to make profits and they don't care about americans. all they care about it is profits. host: joe, you are wondering about the impact of illegal immigration on the unemployed. caller: yes, that is my question to nancy. guest: that is not something that i have necessarily looked at in the course of my reporting about the economy. i don't know the effect that illegal immigration has. my hunch is that it would not be taking jobs away. a lot of the illegal immigrants are working in farm jobs, or jobs that americans don't necessarily want that are low-wage jobs. also, this bls report showed
7:57 am
that a lot of the long-term unemployed were from business sectors, professional services, sort of typical white-collar jobs. that is the kind of job that illegal immigrants with their immigration dennis would not have access to. host: richard in philadelphia good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. the thing i'm concerned about if you could address was, i listen to larry summers one-time and this segment about stagnation. the population he was concerned with was the male population, i believe 22-56, that has been part of this long-term unemployment. can you elaborate on that for me if you are aware of that? guest: sure. we have seen a lot of men being disproportionally affected compared to women. thank you for bringing that up. and particularly men in blue-collar jobs have had a really hard time getting ahead
7:58 am
and out from under this, because a lot of the jobs that went away during the recession were in manufacturing, construction. those jobs were hugely it. if you are a man who had a good hourly paying job in one of these fields, it's likely your job went away and has an come back. -- has not come back. and it has been replaced by lower wage jobs in things like retail hospitality, home health care. those are much lower paying jobs than manufacturing and construction. blue-collar male workers have definitely been hit. host: bill, you are next in strasburg, pennsylvania, employed. caller: good morning. i'm barely employed. i went to a long time of unemployment. and i can barely and i can barely hang on with a small job i have. my question is, i keep hearing about all of these jobs added month after month.
7:59 am
i'm hearing more jobs, more jobs. it seems to me -- where are these jobs? guest: a lot of them, as i was saying, are things he liked working in hotels, home health care a working in retail. there are some professional services jobs. but they are in these specific sectors. what field do you work in? caller: i'm a chef. guest: what field you work in? caller: i'm a chef. these jobs are not there. guest: it also sounds like what you are experiencing is just underemployment, where you have a job, but not the average you want. and that is a huge problem. when people who have been long-term unemployed do find work, sometimes it is part-time. a lot of times they are making less money than they did before and had to accept a wage cut. that is another huge dimension. when people go back-and-forth in
8:00 am
the labor force, they are not necessarily getting everything they were in the past. and that it hard to sustain the lifestyle, which is part of your frustration, and to support a family. host: caller: i worked a lot less hours for a lot less pay. i'm trying to support a home and it's not really happening. my taxes are due in a few weeks and that is another problem hanging over my head. host: how do you pay the bills? caller: barely. beans and rice are a good way to make things right. caller:guest: a lot of long-term unemployed people that i talked to for these pieces were talking about similar things, about how they had a few different jobs to make ends meet, or they had credit debt, or borrowing from friends. these are people who do have
8:01 am
jobs, but the jobs are not paying what they used to. host: how do they pay for health care and these big ticket items, taxes? guest: a lot of people don't have health care. they go without. people with kids, they get on federal government health care for children. a lot of people do things like borrowing from relatives if they can. i talk to people who had tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt. people are borrowing for home equity. some have lost their homes. if you are in the situation of being long-term unemployed, the situation feels quite dyer even though the number that people have decreased since 2010. host: and depending on what state you are in, it might feel more dire. look at this map. these are the percentage of unemployed for 27 weeks or longer by state.
8:02 am
the darker red states are 40% and higher. the light is -- lighter shade 25 to 40%. it goes down from there. those are the states with long-term unemployed. 20% and lower in some of these states. long-term unemployed. guest: it is remarkable. at the height of the recession the share of unemployed people was over 40%. that's a huge number, and such a change and what we have seen since past recessions. host: roger in kentucky very good morning to you. caller: i just think -- this lady started out with walmart and mcdonald's. i just think it is a shame that our country has to stick to
8:03 am
mcdonald's and walmart. we are feeding off each other. nafta sent all the jobs over seas. now, we are all fighting over jobs at mcdonald's. it is sickening. thank you. guest: i think you're making a good point. in the past, 20 or 30 years ago people typically thought of fast food jobs or retail jobs, or jobs that tarbox as jobs for teenagers or college students. more and more, we are seeing adults, even educated adults working at home depot, starbucks. i think that is why there is so much discussion politically now about raising the minimum wage and so much talk among corporations as to what they should offer for an a hourly wage. more grown-ups are trying to support themselves and others on these wages. host: roger you may interested in the sidebar -- ceo's hourly
8:04 am
wage, 5800 $5,800. 13 ceos of a group of well-known retailers hall in an average of over $5,800 per hour. guest: we really see the gap of ceo pay and average workers. that pay gap has increased. i'm sure that is something that will come up in the 2016 presidential election. host: we will go to iowa. speaking of 2060 election. shelley and i would. caller: you are doing a great job. this is a great topic. i'm originally from kentucky. i was hearing about the 27 weeks of being without work. i am an educated
8:05 am
african-american male. my difficulty in finding a job would be over 50. i work for -- i have worked for major companies. the good part is i had good recruiters. get some kind of recruiter. they can find jobs a lot better. the good point about it is that everybody does looking you the same way. when they are looking at your resume and abilities, they don't basin necessarily on your age. there are some that do that. i think that encouraging others out there, keep looking, keep searching. the search is not over. host: you wrote a story recently about this. 2.6 million americans are unemployed, do they need a self-esteem boost? guest: this is a story about in an string -- an interesting program out of m.i.t. taking
8:06 am
older workers and pairing them with executives to counsel them on how to get jobs. these are people who have been out of work for a while. it is an interesting program because it is studying the best strategies to help people get back to work. one way is looking at their self-esteem and helping them get past that block. if you have been out of work for six months or more and applying for all these jobs, these are not lazy people they have been networking. a lot of them have college degrees, graduate degrees. your self-esteem definitely takes a hit. there is research to prove it. a lot of times there is discrimination for people who have been out of work for that long. this is a program that is seeing if we offer these people counseling will that help. the program is funded
8:07 am
through an m.i.t. research grant. they got some money through the aarp. it is about $80,000 worth of free counseling that these people are giving as pro bono work. host: how does this differ from the ready to work partnership grants? guest: m.i.t. is not a federal government thing. host: but the ready to work is? guest: yes. this is a different thing started by an m.i.t. professor. host: is ready to work partnership, we were just showing some of our viewers about it. it was introduced in black last october. for those of you, like our last caller, who are unemployed and talking about the hit that it takes to self-esteem, here is something you can look to.
8:08 am
go to the department of labor if you're a just and in hearing more. kevin into houston, south carolina. you are recently unemployed. what happened? kevin, are you with us? caller: yes, i am here. host: what happened with your job? caller: i lost my job being a moving person. i lost everything. it's kind of hard now. i'm a college graduate. i lost my job. i used to work in new york. i went back to my college, st. john, and they wouldn't even hire me there. right now, i'm in south carolina. i'm trying to find work here. i did a computer interview at walmart. i'm hoping to hear from them. it's been hard. i've been studying this for over seven or eight years. i've been in and out of work. i'm looking at the bailouts that
8:09 am
the government gave these corporate people. i look at the second bailout in particular where the banks got another $750 billion. never once has anyone thought of giving every household that lost their jobs $30,000 or $40,000 to start them off. the first thing they would do is put the money in a bank, by a car, some would buy a house. that would jumpstart the economy. instead, they given to these corporate barons. we are basically now just a third world country. i'm ashamed that this is what is going on. the people are satisfied with their menial jobs. i think america needs to stand for something. rebuild the manufacture sector. rebuild the infrastructure. this country is crumbling. people in congress are just placating and fighting amongst
8:10 am
themselves. when it comes to war, we have $600 billion to go over to other countries and blowup children. our children will be paying for this. they do have a clue. let's invest in our future. host: can i ask you it what did you major in? you said you went to college. caller: my major is business management. i regret the day i went to college. abi should have worked out of high school. i was a basketball player. that's how i got to college. i played in the nba for a little while. it's a deception. this unemployment number. the unemployment is about 11.6%. you have so many people who've not filed. they are so disenfranchised now. host: let me ask you, what do employers say to you when they
8:11 am
are doing interviews? what do they say about your resume? caller: my resume is fine. we will call you back. i think they have an agenda to get a younger worker. i'm 53 years old. they have an agenda to get a younger worker. one that they can train. as opposed to someone who has experience that might be not easily controlled, set in their ways. i really can't put my hand on it. i just need work. for someone to go to college and travel around the world, and then have to come be a moving man, apply at walmart, when you have an education. i used to be a schoolteacher also. it's not like the labor force has people that need training. they just need people who have jobs, good paying jobs so they can take care of their family. host: go ahead. what did you hear there from kevin? guest: i heard a ton of different things. i think he is in a situation that is unfortunately common
8:12 am
among people who i've talked to who have been long-term unemployed. sometimes people -- it sounds like he just moved a south carolina -- a lot of people move to search for jobs. that can be disruptive, you have to start again in terms of your job network. and people who have been out of work for a long time face these unseen financial hardships that people don't always think about. if you're getting a new apartment, you need money for a security deposit. also, i think part of the problem that kevin was talking about is he says he had a college degree, he was a teacher, a basketball player, and he worked for moving company recently. that's the sort of job that is hourly, you get laid off. it sounds like he has been out of the labor force for a while. the longer you are out, the harder it is to get back in. host: here is the jobs section
8:13 am
from "usa today" -- jobseekers should think small. the heavy lifting by firms with fewer than 50 employees is likely to crop up. some economists expect to flow growth. keith in chicago. you have been long-term and employed -- unemployed. caller: unfortunately i find myself in this problematic d d demographic. 20 plus years in my field professional services. one thing that you are not talking about is the new codified recruitment system where employers are using third-party recruiters to do phone screens.
8:14 am
they look at your salary. they look at your education your experience. you are qualified. maybe graduated from college 20 years ago. you are screened out. one other dimension, age. and if you have a hispanic or black last name, you are screened out. the number one problem that i face -- and i will spend eight hours today like every day this year on the phone and on the internet applying for jobs that i will qualify for -- there are literally hundreds of them each week. i am director level, but i would take any job. i get screened out because i have a hispanic last name. i'm biracial. it's a frustration.
8:15 am
no one is even thinking about us. we are highly educated. this is supposed to be the time that we are getting ready for retirement, and we are starting all over. host: what about your retirement savings? caller: all gone. host: god. you had to use a? caller: yes. host: keith -- i apologize, i thought you are done. nancy cook. guest: that is a common story that i heard from people i talk to. the 50 plus. it is really heartbreaking. people like him who are well educated, they have done everything right. they bought a house, put money away for retirement, have a rainy day savings fund, had a good job, have experienced. once people hit this long-term unemployment, they have been out
8:16 am
of work for a while, it gets harder and harder to get back into the labor market. people plow through their money. also, employers want to hire people at the cheapest wages they can. when you have people with experience, employers don't always want that because they will think that person will require a higher salary and they don't necessarily want to pay that, even though people who i talked to say that they would be willing to settle for last. host: on our line for the employed from pittsburgh. caller: i am employed. i do want to make it clear that i and working a low-paid job. before i make my, and question, i want to say that i'm not doing that well. i'm barely getting by. i've a question for nancy cook. my, is that i do -- my comment is that i do believe we are
8:17 am
going in the rejection, but the public doesn't know in what direction we are going. sometimes we create $200,000 -- 200,000 jobs, but then in a month like march we create no jobs. this last month, it looks like an exception to the rule to me. when i hear someone say that who is a national policy correspondent, it sounds to me more like a political spin doctor. the question i have for ms. cook is how does she feel about returning to the policies that we used by an large from the 1930's to the 1990's where we did not rely 100% on the private market to make jobs, but we allowed the government to engage in sometimes massive government
8:18 am
spending to create jobs. no additional job bills have been passed. i'm wondering if she think that would be the right direction to go instead of the leave the government out of it approached? guest: i think a lot of people think that if the government started spending money in infrastructure, for instance -- bridges are falling apart, roads need repairs, on my way over here, there are a lot of potholes in d.c. -- we could fix this and also put people back to work. yes, stimulus money would help but there is absolutely no political will to do that. congress led unemployment benefits expire. that caosts less than infrastructure. congress is very remote. nothing like that will get through. host: about his first comment about the 14 straight months of
8:19 am
job growth. guest: i think we have had some good job growth. i don't want to pooh-pooh that. there have been other economic indicators that haven't necessarily proven that the economy is -- i think people are waiting to see whether or not 2015 will be a good year. host: we showed our employers the bureau of labor statistics saying that there are still people long-term unemployed. is the federal reserve looking at this number, and is that a factor in their decision making on interest rates? guest: that is a great question. the federal reserve is trying to decide when they will raise interest rates. i think indicators like unemployment and the long-term unemployed definitely influenced their decision. if the job report on friday
8:20 am
wasn't that great, we have to see what the revisions are and what the report is next week. these are the indicators that they are watching to decide when to increase interest rates. the federal reserve, once the stimulus was passed and it is no more stimulus money, the federal reserve is the key people trying to pump money into the economy. host: we will go to charles. caller: well. -- wow. sitting on the phone and listening to everyone comment by the time you get on the air, you have 10 things you want to cover. what i called about is the one comment that the german made about nafta, in general, trade agreements, i believe the bottom line congress and the government is the problem. people getting jobs and starbucks -- at starbucks or at walmart. the construction industry is
8:21 am
supposed to be indicator. the problem is you need income to buy a house. that income is not coming from a barista or someone working at walmart. it will come from inc. manufacturing job for a construction job. i understand you made a comment about illegal immigrants doing jobs that americans don't want to do. that may be the case in california or some agriculturalyy rich state, but not in north virginia. the construction energy is by and large nothing but latinos. yes, you can get jobs done. at your home, someone will come by and get a quote, and they will be easily 20% or 30% less than other companies. i don't want to get off topic, but the problem with our manufacturing industry is basically that it is disappearing. that's where all the great jobs
8:22 am
were. that's where the money was. that's where you could get in there and a person with no education could end up making $50,000-$60,000 per year. they are basically by a large gone. host: i want to jump in and has nancy could talk about the manufacturing industry. what did the latest number show? guest: the latest numbers show that there is some manufacturing coming back to the u.s.. i don't want to act like all many factory have gone. some companies have relocated here. it is high and stuff and not be same level of jobs. manufacturing is now done by robots. there are fewer and fewer people needed on the assembly lines. the people who are needed are very highly skilled. we are not going to see a manufacturing renaissance like the textile industry in south carolina. that is not coming back. the jobs that are coming back,
8:23 am
they are not paying $27 per hour and not union jobs like in the past. it will be like $15 on a contract basis. they don't offer the same sort of security. if you are person with just a high school level education, it is harder and harder to find a good job. we have seen that trend for a long time. the recession has definitely had home -- hit home. host: laura from austin, texas. long-term unemployed. guest: you are the first woman caller. this is great. caller: it took a bit to get through. thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a couple of comments. one, you stated that we are in a recovery. i want to make sure that you understand, we are not in a recovery. there is no way that an economy with the fol a falling labor force
8:24 am
is in recovery. you don't disregard people like me who are long-term unemployed and say that we have recovered. i'm not even commenced that the recession is over. i think people have been using definitions that are outdated for the current conditions. i was a project manager. i have four university degrees. i can't find a job. i took ms. cook's profile -- i fit ms. cook's long-term profile for the unemployed. nothing she has said is surprising. the long-term prospects -- this is unsustainable. it is very frustrating to me because i have no more savings
8:25 am
left. in 2000, i had a retirement account of $300,000. i have $500 now. that is it. i had to use it to survive. guest: werther tax implications as well for taking out that money? caller: yes. 10%. just to pay the bills. that's what i use it for. not frivolous stuff. i had to eat and feedback -- feed my family. it is god. there is a crisis that people are not recognizing. congress has to get on the stick. like pre- -- like several of your previous caller stated, there is nothing left. the middle classes n no longer the cushion that the country can depend on. we had been decimated. now, u.s. labor is considered a
8:26 am
threat to corporate profits. we are considered a cost, and that cost has to get cut anyway possible. that is off shoring and importing foreign labor that paid wages that we need. we cannot fight for this. our elected representatives are supposed to represent us. they are not. host: i don't know if he told us, but how old are you? if you don't mind. caller: i will be 53 this year. host: what kind of jobs are you applying for? caller: anything. high and low. i applied for a job and irs. i was supposed to have a job this year, but the republicans killed a job in the cromnibus. i needed that job to leverage what money my family gives me to help out. that's now gone. i have tried -- i have a degree in physics. i can do statistics. i have a degree in biology. i should be a hirers's dream.
8:27 am
i send out resumes, and i never hear back. when i managed to get an them interview -- an interview, i hear, you are perfect. you are absolutely what we are looking for, we have just found someone who is a little more perfect than you are. that is not indicative of a recovery that is recovering -- an economy that is recovering. guest: i think that lawyers experience is very common. it is heartbreaking because you think these are these people who are in their 40's and 50's to have all this great experience, and this should be there prime earning years, the time when they are paying the most in taxes, when they are sending their kids to college, and a lot of people have these huge economic hits. part of the problem i think laura is talking about is when you have been out of work for a
8:28 am
long time, study shows that you face job this rumination. the white house has had summits where they talk to ceos and ceos promised to not discriminate, but there is no real way to measure or enforce that. the other thing that lori mentioned is the perception of the economy. i feel like people in washington said around and look at these indicators, there are different indicators that, each week on how much people are spending and saving. we use these economic indicators to get a snapshot as to how the economy is working. if you are out of work for a while, you haven't done a raise none of those economic indicators matter. you does have this perception that the economy is terrible. i think a lot of americans feel that way. host: sandy from florida. go ahead. caller: yes. i would like her to talk about if she can, the outsourcing. there was a new story on a major
8:29 am
media source about how long of these -- all of these tax tech firms where people can higher from india and pakistan for these jobs. the people already in the jobs were supposed to be training them. the other thing is i live in florida. i have lived here for 20 years. we have a problem. we used to be that when you would need help, you would call in on the telephone. all of those jobs are gone. host: customer service? caller: yes. those are all outsourced. our construction has not come back. florida has always been a low-wage state in the first place. the governor, of course unfortunately i voted for him -- [laughter]
8:30 am
he is claiming about all the jobs he has created. my daughter is one of the reasons i am calling. long-term unemployed. i don't think unless they do something about the tax situation and bring back manufacturing jobs, everything does not have to be manufactured overseas. that's my comment. host: we will have nancy cook jump in. guest: i think the caller is right that a lot of jobs like call-center jobs are moving overseas. i see that when i call for i.t. support. i think people see that. florida has historically had a high unemployment rate. i think the caller and her daughter are right about a lot of things. host: devon, recently unemployed in greensboro, north carolina. caller: hi, nancy. this is no negative response on
8:31 am
you or the anchor sitting next to you, that you guys have had callers colin and explain numerous times how they can't find a job, they have the educational experience, the resumes are perfect, they're going to the interviews, they are told they are perfect, and that they never called back. you see that the job market is growing, and it's all false. no negativity to you, but you aren't spin doctors. -- are spin doctors. host: nancy cook is economic and fiscal policy correspondent for "national journal to go you can find her work on nathaniel in louisiana. unemployed for more than 26
8:32 am
weeks. long-term unemployed. go ahead. caller: i've been unemployed -- one of the reasons is because of age. they say they don't look at it but they do. they can't discriminate, but they definitely look at age. like i said, i lost mine during lunch and cheney. i retired in 2006, and next thing i knew it was all gone. one thing i think we would do better is if they would work with the president. he wants to create jobs, but republicans refuse to work with him. when i retired, i was making $32 per hour. i went to work in 2009 for $29 per hour in my field. i went back to work for five months. i went back to work in 2012
8:33 am
$425. and the cost of living is going up and up. how are you supposed to make it? you almost kind of start over. that's what amounts to. host: how old are you and how much did you lose in savings? caller: im 72 years old. i will be 73 pretty soon. i lost everything that i had. it wasn't called the 401, it was a bad investment. we used to laugh. there was this old man who would tell us, i put mine in the bank. he is dead and gone now, by think about all the time, what he used to tell us. host: putting it in the bank
8:34 am
versus the stock market. can the government create jobs? guest: they can create money by spending money. it won't be a big stimulus bill, but if they spend money on infrastructure, which we talked about, or just getting money flowing in the economy, yes, that can create jobs. host: the white house sending a proposal to congress recently on highway funding. guest: transportation, infrastructure in this country. trying to prompt congress to create those jobs. guest: i feel he congress is not on that path at this point. there are other things -- you know, republicans controlled congress now and there are other things that they want to do. i feel he is very little will at this point to create these infrastructure jobs. host: michael. long-term unemployed. caller: first of all, let me start out by saying, i retired
8:35 am
at age 51. it was forced retirement with the federal government. i was in foreign services. i retired at 51. i've been trying to get a career going since i retired over a year ago. i have been unemployed. i have sent numerous resumes out. i tried to watch fox news on a low dosage basis. they advertise about these new jobs created. to be honest with you, i don't see any new jobs. i don't see any type of professional jobs being created. i just like to hear your input on that, nancy. guest: that's an accurate feeling that you have. even the federal government, which cynically has been a huge employer, not just a d.c., but all over the country. federal government jobs have
8:36 am
been cut, especially after the recession. i think people like you are frustrated because they want jobs but jobs are paying $10 per hour, if that. host: nancy cook is economic and fiscal policy correspondent. guest: thanks for having me. host: coming up we will hear from sheila krumholz about federal guidelines for 2015 contenders. what they must follow in the race for the white house. later, we will get your take on the "rolling stone" reduction of the alledge it rate story at the mercy of virginia. we will be right back. ♪
8:37 am
>> each night this week at 9:00 eastern, conversations with a few new members of congress. >> when you raise your hand and took your oath of office, what were your mom and dad thinking? >> i knew my mom would be crying. my dad was proud. he is 82 years old. he usually walks with a cane. he showed up and he wasn't walking with his cane. i said dad, do i need to send someone to the hotel to get your cane? he stood up stray and said, i am in the capital, i don't need my cane.
8:38 am
he wants without a cane for the rest the day. >> five new members of congress talk about their careers and political lives and share insight as to how things work in on capitol hill. >> "washington journal" continues. host: with sender rand paul ready to announce his bid for presidential candidate for 2016, sheila krumholz is here. sender rand paul in kentucky at noon will be officially announcing his bid. what federal guidelines fall in place once you officially announce? guest: once they have declared their candidacy, they must begin fundraising in limited amounts. they must be ready to report that in periodic reports.
8:39 am
that's what is a given, but what is little understood is even before they officially declare their candidacy, they make in fact be candidates in the eyes of the federal election commission. this is a very uncertain period in which people are not clear on the rules, but there are very clear roles. the candidates are being squishy about falling them now. host: what's the advantage of -- senator cruz last week, senator rand paul today -- others are saying, i will wait. what are the advantages and disadvantages? guest: they are trying to time it so that they can raise money and build support, collect endorsements, outside of the screw scrutiny that will come
8:40 am
with their campaign, and wait until the first quarter is over so that they have a full quarter to really hone in on fundraising and come out with the biggest number that they can with their first report. host: before they the clare, what are the rules for how much they can raise? and what they have to declare, versus after they officially announce? guest: the period right before they declare is often referred to as the testing the waters. this is where it would be candidate or hopeful in determining the feasibility of a candidacy. this is not just -- this is an actual term with the federal election commission. they are looking for signs that the candidate is conducting activities that would indicate that they are indeed testing the waters like pulling, making calls to potential supporters, doing some travel.
8:41 am
these are things that don't necessarily trigger the threshold of the becoming an official candidate, but they do require that this person testing the waters is raising funds in limited are $2700 per candidate for election. 2700 for the primary and 2700 for the general. if someone is testing the waters and not so serious about it, and they don't end up running, it doesn't really matter how much money they have accepted from people because they are not candidate. i could go out and accept one million dollars, but if i never register as a candidate, then there is nothing to report. nothing wrong. at the point at which i am testing the waters, all of those contributions must be in limited amounts and ultimately disclosed to the election commission. host: here is an editorial from
8:42 am
"the washington post" from last week -- mocking the law. the federal commission has established rules for the testing the water phase but people are skirting the rules saying that they are not testing the waters. those named in the complaint are jeb bush, martin o'malley, rick santorum, and scott walker. they are saying, "the washington post" is saying that they are mocking the law. the candidates say they are not doing anything wrong. guest: i think they are citing the nonpartisan legal center pause complaint that these people are indeed flouting the law. they are dodging the rules. they are saying that -- they are going through verbal gymnastics
8:43 am
to avoid saying that they are candidates, and sometimes having to walk statements back for fear that the sec may enforce this rule. what they are doing is trying to raise these unlimited funds from unlimited sources for their super pac's, which in some cases they have themselves establish. this would be impossible, not permitted where the in the testing the waters or officially a candidate. they are trying to, again, as like candidates in terms of fundraising, outreach to the public, getting people excited building momentum for the campaign, but they are making jokes that the sec is watching so i can't really be a candidate. this allows them to go after mega-donors during this critical period. host: and bring in as much as they can from these donors?
8:44 am
there is no limit? guest: absolutely no limit. this is precisely what the concern is. the citizens united ruling, the basis for it, depends on these outside groups, which can be fully independent of the candidate, and to disclose these donations. in fact, these are candidates for all intensive purposes. they are very closely associated with super pac's, which ultimately will have to be independent of them, but meanwhile, they will have raise tens of thousands of dollars. host: we are speaking with sheila krumholz of the center for responsible politics. 2016 potential presidential candidates, what are they obligated and not obligated to do under these rules? call in with your questions and comments. republicans, (202) 748-8001.
8:45 am
democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 745-8002. you can also send us an e-mail, hillary clinton's brooklyn headquarters. she has signed a lease for this building. what does that mean in the eyes of the sec? guest: she is testing the waters. they consider all the candidates and activities that they are taking and they just for actions to be in this testing the water phase. she doesn't have to declare yet but she will presumably in the next few weeks to begin fundraising ahead of the second quarter report to bolster their numbers. this is the time of getting the excitement building ahead of the launch announcement which is a
8:46 am
critical first impression. this is all very carefully forgot -- choreographed in order to set the stage for this person and whether candidacy will stand for. host: the federal election commission has a rule that a candidate has only 15 days between conducting activities and finally the official 2016 paperwork. is this an official act by hillary clinton? guest: yes. but clock -- the clock is ticking. host: that is why you are hearing all these reports, any day now, she will make an announcement. guest: again, for most of the candidates, they will use this period in the next few weeks to make their announcement. this was why widely anticipated, but these are the kinds of actions that will get the fec to
8:47 am
judge them as a candidate whether or not they judge themselves. host: a lot of scrutiny lately about the clinton foundation and the money that they receive and what it means for a white house bid for the former secretary of state. foreign money going to the family foundation. what does the sec's say -- fec saying about foundations that raise money and what that means for a campaign for office? guest: these are nonprofits. the clintons associated with them, they are very politically associated nonprofits. they have been able to collect unlimited sums from unlimited sources, just like all nonprofits. in the case of the clinton foundation, they have attracted huge sums of money from foreign donors, even foreign governments. they have stopped accepting
8:48 am
foreign funds at this time, but that does not change the fact that they have a wide and broad network, and this has been money that has helped -- if not help directly a future clinton campaign helped bolster her name recognition, which is quite broad. other candidates who have similar wide and deep networks to tap -- the jeb bush campaign once launched will also be able to tap into his brother and father's political networks. politically active nonprofits. this is really ground zero of the concern here in 2016. this is where dark money -- secret contributions, unknown sounds, unknown sources, it is seeping into the system and will go directly or on directly to
8:49 am
support the candidates. the concern from citizen united is that this is where corruption can be found. host: can in brooklyn, new york. go ahead. caller: i have a question. i know all these campaign-finance laws are in fear of corruption. if i want to donate to a candidate without might neighbor knowing who i support, what are my choices to donate to a campaign without getting the repercussions of everyone knowing my political support? thank you. guest: you can get small amounts of money. if it is under $50, that will not go on to the roster. once you to the $50 trigger, the information about the donor has to be reported to the federal election commission. the name, the address, the employer.
8:50 am
this was deemed necessary in order to protect the integrity of the campaign system, following the watergate scandal in the 70's. this is seen as a reasonable bargain, and people -- if people want to pay for candidates to run and support them, they need to as justice scalia says, have the backbone to do so publicly so that everyone can know that this system has not been rigged or bought by well-heeled donors. all donors must be willing to provide that information is they want to contribute directly to a candidate. of course, now they can give unlimited sums from a corporation or union or trade association 28 super pac that supports that candidate. they can also give to the candidate. host: john from virginia.
8:51 am
democratic caller. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just want to say to the guests that i think we are sick and tired of bush and clinton. the way that the country is going, it is wrong that the supreme court allow that myself and walmart camp can pay the same amount of money. i cannot challenge walmart or corporate america. we are selecting people. the corporate's america decide who will become the president of the united aids. it is a win in this country that i love that we can call it a election, but it is not an election anymore. it is whoever has more money will win the election. that is not an election. guest: i think what the caller is describing -- his discontent
8:52 am
is broadly reflected in the populous across the political spectrum. people are concerned about the citizens united decision that this is ingesting huge amounts of money not just from corporations, unions, and trade associations, but from unknown sources, potentially foreign services. we have no idea where this money is coming from when it goes to these dark money political nonprofits. on the other hand, we have not yet seen evidence that megacorporations are wielding their vast resources to inject that money directly into the campaign. again, they could. the cycle may be the cycle in which corporations get involved more dramatically in supporting super pac's. again, they may be supporting political nonprofits outside of
8:53 am
our view. the work that we at the center for responsive politics are undertaking is to try and expose where that money is coming from and going to in terms of politically active nonprofits. host: reminded viewers what is a political action committee? guest: a political action committee is a committee that can raise contributions for candidates. the contributions they raise are limited. i can give it a pack $5,000 per year, and the money they give candidates are limited. they can give them $10,000 per year. $500 for the general. the problem is making collect
8:54 am
unlimited sums from unlimited services. -- sources. they can't take those large sums of money and transfer it, or gives it to a candidate directly. what we are seeing is that many of these super pac's are single candidate super pac's. they exist solely and inclusively to benefit for -- or attack -- one single candidate. that is why there is such grave concern that a wealthy person, corporation, or union can back a super pac and have a massive impact. host: david, an independent. caller: good morning. i have a solution, hopefully, to this problem. since congress has an approval rating under 10%, this would be a great issue to mobilize our
8:55 am
persuasions within this argument. i would suggest a constitutional amendment to restrict $1000 per candidate per election cycle. and then term limits and restrictions on politicians leading office, going into lobbying positions immediately. i feel that if we, as a people can come together and form a constitutional amendment and take this how are -- this power, and give the power back to the people, i don't think it would matter if you are republican or democrat, it is obvious that congressional ratings, the approval of their job performance, is hovering a little under 10%. this course of action would definitely real in some of the bogus money that is running our political system.
8:56 am
guest: we at believe in that those hashing outperforms do not have information that they need to make lasting reforms. there are performs like a constitutional amendment, public financing on the table that americans are rallying around but until there is enough support from the public and pressure on our legislators to make change, we are stuck with the citizens united ruling, which i favors free speech and disfavors action which would curtail these large sums of
8:57 am
money from unknown sources. the judgment in that decision was if there is no quid pro quo, there is no corruption. i think the kind of techniques or antics that we are seeing now, the games that some hopeful presidential candidates are playing gives light of the notion that all is working according to that schema presented in citizens united. host: sam, another independent. caller: good morning. i would just like to say that we have been following some dark money. this money is so dark, you need night vision glasses to see in it. it is from hollywood, epa, other countries, sierra club, and other places. a professor at harvard lawrence
8:58 am
-- something like that -- said that it is the darkest money he has ever seen. you can't trace it. it goes from foundation to foundation and distributed through the democratic party. even money like the money disappeared from all those farmers. it got thrown in there. they said it went overseas to england. nothing was ever done about him. he said, money illegally from the farmers. host: all right, sam. sheila ckrumholz. guest: the caller makes a good point that the money raised from known and unknown sources is up
8:59 am
bipartisan phenomenon. it is a tool that both parties and candidates, to some degree, are taking advantage of. we have seen that the shift from first primarily conservative organizations to liberal organizations take advantage of super pac's and outside groups. i think we will see particularly for the presidential campaign, lots, if not most of the money, focused on winning the white house for their party. this is by no means just relegated to one party or the other. this is a phenomenon across the political spectrum. host: "usa today" reporting that a billionaire will target gop hopefuls so that trying to brothers. what do you make of billionaires getting in on a single-topic issue like this, climate change,
9:00 am
trying to impact the results? what are your concerns with what they might expect in return? guest: our concern with regard to billionaires funding massive ad blitzes to influence electoral outcomes is first to make sure that people understand where the messages they are being bombarded with our coming from. i think the gentleman who just called, if he were on the receiving end of an ad list from tom stiers' campaign, as long as it is going through a super pac and is fully just closed -- fully disclosed will be able to judge for himself and gauge the credibility of the message and messenger. that is a critical element. if we cannot know who the messenger is we cannot effectively gauge the credibility that message merits. if i have, if i am viewing an ad
9:01 am
from an abortion-related group or a pro-gun rights group and i'm familiar with that group, i can decide whether or not i agree with the message and i understand who is sending the message. if it is coming from some group i've never heard of, unfortunately what i and other americans will do is listen more closely and potentially gives that group more credibility than they deserve. what we are concerned about is making sure americans have the information before them, including who is behind the group, what campaigns are connected to them and where the money is coming from. host: a democrat in minneapolis tom go ahead. good morning. caller: hey there. host: you are on the air. caller: i wanted to say, a quick comment on the previous session.
9:02 am
you should have a weekly call in on the jobs problem in america. believe me, things are really bad. you independently do not know. a -- you in the beltway do not know. a weekly thing, your calls would be also hurt. -- off the hook. i don't think we have any help in this country. we have a corporate talkere-ocracy. kearney capitalism. --crony capitalism. supreme court made it worse. i was amazed the other day. about a week ago i heard that he british isles, starting their election campaign.
9:03 am
they started late march and there are going to have the election may 6. six weeks. we're not civilized anymore. guest: that does sound refreshing. our campaigns have evolved into expensive affairs. that may or may. not be a big deal in another itself. the implication is that fewer and fewer people can afford to run. they might have great ideas but if they do not have the money they are not going to be viable. i think that is a valid concern. what is the solution? if there were a scandal akin to the scandals of the 1990's or a watergate scandal that could propel the public to move and to call for our demand action from their legislators. we may see people rallying
9:04 am
around a particular reform, leveraging technology to gather people to their campaign and building a mass movement. first of has to be a recognition of the problem. there has to be more debate about what is going on and what we can do about it. people need to take responsibility for their democracy. if it is not working, nobody is going to fix it but us. host: arizona independent caller. caller: thank you. i think we need to get the money as much as possible out of the system. so that our leaders in congress and the presidency do not have all these strings tied to them. commitments from big-money. the other thing i would like to say, excuse me, two people
9:05 am
running for president of the united states is ridiculous. the most powerful office and person in the world and we have two representatives. it is too easy to control this office. thank you. guest: first that comment is an excellent point. the problem with the money is not just who can afford to run but what happens once they are in office. they are bringing to office all of the ious from their wealthy donors who bankrolled their campaign and put them there. the question is whether people once in office, public officials, are giving us the best policy they can craft based on the merits or whether we are getting policy based on the money. based on who is spending to
9:06 am
support candidates and hit is lobbying once they are in office to shape their vote. our system has been privately financed. if we are to retain the system of privately financed elections with it comes responsibility to be vigilant about who is spending the money, what they want in return, what they are getting a return and hold elected officials accountable. right now we have an accountability does a visit -- deficit. in campaign finance and in politics. it is up to the constituents, we're all busy enough trying to hold down multiple jobs in many cases, as your earlier guest was speaking about. and yet if we cede our place at the table, lobbyists
9:07 am
corporations and organizations they represent will take our place. they will have the ultimate say in shaping what policies are passed will stop host: we told you about tom stiers' plans to go after republicans. the houston chronicle front page the koch brothers also strategizing, expanding in texas and around the country and i drive to mobilize latino voters heading into the 2016 election. here is a tweet from one of our viewers. "does current law allow anonymous political donations from foreign entities?" guest: foreign donors are not allowed to make contributions directly to federal candidates. however, now that citizens united is the law of the land, outside groups, including politically active nonprofits, which do not disclose the sources of their funds are campaigning on behalf of or against federal candidates. this is a concern -- that we cannot know that that activity is not being run on behalf of a
9:08 am
foreign corporation, a foreign individual, a foreign government. we simply cannot know. host: david is on twitter wanting to know this, "why aren't political donors proud rather than afraid to reveal who they support?" guest: that is interesting. political donations are a valid way to participate in democracy. if you support the ideas and ideals of a person running for office to be able to contribute to and support their campaign, i think it is a terrific thing. i would prefer, i think most people would prefer that more americans were giving amounts that are perhaps not as large as we are having now. the money is coming now from a very elite few americans. our research shows that less than .5% of americans fund most
9:09 am
of the political campaigns in this country. but there are lots of small donor programs that are trying to encourage more money coming from more people that would not have the iou's attached and be so rife with conflicts of interest. many are voucher programs. they have credits in place. there are different ways to get there but i think that kind of a reform, coupled with technology that makes it easier and easier for americans to participate by giving contributions or in other ways, it might be one helpful solution. host: also, oklahoma, a democrat. hi. caller: terry. host: welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. i think, i've then wanting to
9:10 am
get this message out forever. i think as american people that we should elect only politicians with public -- republican, democrat, independent and green that their main reason is to take money out of politics. it is amazing green that how many problems that would immediately solve if when we voted for a person, if they did not -- that was the focus of their campaign and their time in government was to end a campaign financing as it stands now. host: mississippi independent. year? comment -- your question or comment for sheila krumholz. caller: let people donate all they want. as long as they make politicians
9:11 am
wear blazers not say who their lobbyists or contributors are like they do in nascar, then we would know what we have got. .there would be no question host: bruce, chicago. caller: hi, how are you? i was wondering what you think about, you know with the disclosure of people who donate political money after the irs fiasco where they chased all the conservative people around. guest: the irs has not come out with their next rulemaking on how they are going to enforce t he rules on tax-exempt organizations. obviously they were ham-handed in their handling of how to identify which nonprofits are deserving of tax-exempt status. most of the attention failed to
9:12 am
their -- fell to their focus on key party groups. the report declared that they were also looking at liberal organizations but the bottom line revealed that the irs should not be the government entity that is making these decisions about political activity. ultimately, we will need to have a much clearer bright line about how much political activity is allowed. some organizations are spending more than 50% of their revenue on political activity and should be filing with the federal election commission as a political committee raising limited sons from limited sources. there are other indications that these groups are trying to fly under the radar but in their activities act as political groups. the irs and ultimately congress
9:13 am
is going to have to get a handle on how to regulate these organizations. host: nashville tennessee. rich, an independent. caller: good morning. i have a comment and question. the comment is this, if the government -- if the government isto create jobs, they do not want, the right does not want the government to create jobs. the right is not creating jobs. corporate taxation or whatever it might be. my comment is that anybody who creates a job in america for americans and then lays them off to take every seas for cheap labor is a traitor. the question i have is what does the center of politics what is it that you do? the corporate donations and all that, to me it does not seem
9:14 am
fair. i would like for you to expand on that, please. guest: i'm happy to talk about the center for responsive politics. our website is an earlier caller suggested politicians wear blazers with logos emblazoned on them. go to, look of the candidates running for office in your district and for the white house and find out which organizations are the top donors to that campaign. since 2012, we have been unearthing information about dark money organizations that are increasingly important to the political process since citizens united. you can find donors to and information about super pac's come outside groups, canada parties -- candidate parties and
9:15 am
more on our website. host: silver spring, maryland independent. caller: i would like to make a suggestion that if you want to overwhelm the influence of big money on politics, it would go a long way towards that goal if you made small contributions to political candidates and causes tax-deductible. that way, you would have more middle income people contributing. to politics. and as our guest suggested, you would also have more, this would be beneficial to the political system itself. thank you. host: all right. guest: yes.
9:16 am
i think whatever solution we arrive at it has to include more americans getting involved getting engaged and getting informed from critical sources about -- credible sources about where the money comes from and what kind of people they want to represent them. and then how good a job they do ever present them. part of -- as representing them. part of the problem is the election but the other part is the money focused on elected officials once in office that is shaping the policies and other outcomes of their work. it does require people becoming engaged, more americans are needed and small donations may well be part of that package and the ultimate solution. host: sheila krumholz, one last phone call. in ohio, a democrat. hi. caller: i'm so glad to talk to everybody in the united states. the koch brothers are investing in the u.s. it's on national graphic tv.
9:17 am
i'd like to know if they could be stopped. guest: well, the koch brothers are the kind of bogeyman of the left. they're not alone but they are spear heading the largest dark money organizations setting their sights on shaping electronic outcomes at the federal dark money organizations setting their sights on shaping electronic outcomes at the federal level. in our research, they are among those we are investigating in our work. in the beginning of last year, we published information detailing their investment in the 2012 elections, for instance. we found that they had put in $400 million to influence the outcome of those elections. i would expect it would be -- it is projected they will double
9:18 am
that in the 2016 cycle. host: sheila krumholz executive director for center for responsive politics. thank you. when we come back, we get your thoughts on the "rolling stone" magazine story about rape at the university of virginia. they have read dr. that after a columbia university review report on how that happened. we get your thoughts on that after the short break. ♪ >> each night this week and i put p.m. eastern -- at 9:00 p.m. eastern, new members of congress.
9:19 am
>> when you took the oath of office, what were your mom and dad thinking? >> i knew my mom would be crying and my dad was proud. my dad is 82 years old. he showed up to the capitol. he did not have his cane. i said do i need to send someone to get your cane. he says i am not the -- i am in the capitol, i dont need a cane. >> the newest members of congress talk about careers and personal lives and share insight about how things work on capitol hill. join us for their conversations each night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: getting your thoughts for the remainder of today's "washington journal." the "rolling stone" magazine issuing a apology to
9:20 am
university of virginia, the fraternity, and to readers for a story on an alleged rape. it has officially redirected the story -- redacted that story after columbia university did a report. two of the three authors held a news conference answering questions about their report on this story. >> this report is intended as a piece of journalism about a failure of journalism. in that sense, our first objective was to lay out what happened at rolling stone how it happened and why it happened. although we did concentrate our efforts on the details of "rolling stone's" reporting and editing, we also have the freedom to investigate any aspect of the story that we
9:21 am
thought was germane and in the public interest. so, in the end the final report had at least in our minds several intended purposes. one was to eliminate the key -- illum inate the key reasons why "rolling stone's" reporting, why the failure was avoidable. and to draw lessons from that. another reason was to assess independently some subjects "rolling stone" covered beyond jackie's narrative particularly the timeline of how uva handled jackie's information. the report also addresses "rolling stone's" editorial policies and makes recommendations to the magazine. finally it tries to evaluate how journalists might begin to improve our own practices to
9:22 am
define best practices when we are reporting about rape cases on campus or anywhere else. host: that is two of the three authors from columbia university's school of journalism yesterday holding a news conference talking about their report. joining us via skype is tom rosenstiel executive director for the american press institute to talk more about this report and "rolling stone's'" piece. tom rosenstiel, i want your initial reaction to the "rolling stone" magazine, it's reporting and how they handled the story. guest: shockingly badly. i think we have no not four months. -- we have known that for months. the columbia review confirmed failures and reporting that had already been identified by other publications such as "the
9:23 am
washington post" and others. it is pretty fundamental in journalism that you do not write what you believe is true you write what you can prove is true. in the language of the "rolling stone" authors, when they were apologizing for the mistake initially, which they did many months ago, they said our trust in jackie, report stated --
9:24 am
it is prettythe essence of journalism is a discipline of verification.
9:25 am
9:26 am
9:27 am
9:28 am
we are individuals with our own standards and investigative journalism is supposed to take everything up and we are supposed to -- and the editors are supposed to temper and say show us the proof. it is not that simple. you are as good as your own personal standards and as a reporter, you have to be careful. as an editor, your job is to respond to the strengths and weaknesses. there are some investigative reporters who are extremely aggressive and some investigative reporters who are cautious. there are some who have delivered airtight stories that require much less editing and there are investigative reporters that drop notebooks on desks of their bosses and need
9:29 am
enablers to get the story. there is a whole range. any journalist is accountable to their own moral standards. 4 host: columbia university report said there was a systematic's failure all the way. you disagree with it at all? guest: first, i agree with that. second, as steve carl says in a clip that you aired, they tried to produce a piece of journalism about a failure of journalism. unlike other reports that have investigative journalistic failures or moments in that it's not report like.
9:30 am
it's almost a story about the story. as a consequence, it bends over backwards to walk in the shoes. it would have been harsher and there would go to conclusions that were even sort of more blunt about the institutional failures. host: some are wondering why no one is getting fired at "rolling stone" and why the report does not suggest people get fired. guest: well, i don't know with a brief was. they had the opportunity to do that and if that was his and -- i also think by the way it is a complicated thing for an outsider to tell an organization
9:31 am
whether they should fire people are not. it is a different thing to say look, here is what kind of editorial practice you should have them play. the reporting makes clear that the people at "rolling stone" think their practices are fine, the columbia university others do not agree. host: what do they say and what are the recommendations to fix them. guest: at "rolling stone" they use narrative techniques that allow for the reader to be somew hat misled. techniques of fiction. they also suggest that the -- it
9:32 am
is a position where it is hard for the fact checking department -- it notes that magazine journalism is different in the sense that it tries very much to be about storytelling. you cannot let that get in the way of the fundamentals. that is absolutely true. if you have written books and down a magazine piece, the fundamentals come first of finding out whether the story was true and only then can you figure out what is a compelling lead to do it. there is reconstructed dialogue based on one witness. it's written in a way that there are multiple witnesses to that. [no audio]
9:33 am
host: the conversation to our viewers and having them weigh in on the rolling stone story. the phone lines are on your screen. we are talking with tom rosenstiel via skype. a veteran and author of journalism about the report. i want to ask you, what do you think the impact is on journalism? guest: i don't know that there is a lasting attack. it is the same thing that happens in hospitals when a patient dies they do an investigation. the difference is that is private.
9:34 am
in journalism it is always public. because that is the nature of this profession. so these things look to the casual observer as if it is another sign of an apocalypse. but it is actually the opposite. it is another sign of discipline. a self policing profession. host: find it more at tom's website. what do you think about rolling stone's reporting, the report by columbia university's graduate school of journalism. art in georgia, you are up first. caller: rolling stone, asking for the report, does that give
9:35 am
it partial immunity for liability? a lot of times when an employee violates company policy and the company can prove it they will tell the plaintiff to sue the employee rather than the company because it is the employee at fault. host: interesting. caller: i am wondering if legally can they bring that up in court and say our employees violated our policy. host: "rolling stone" has on their website -- "what went wrong? the editor says this, as we asked ourselves how we could have gotten the story wrong, we asked someone from outside the magazine. we agreed that we would cooperate fully, they would
9:36 am
receive no payment. a condensed version of the report will appear in the next version of the magazine out tomorrow. don independent caller. caller: i am just sitting here. i'm listening to the rolling stones -- if they would get their facts, they would not have to apologize. they just want to be out there with their story, it is kind of like michael brown in missouri. we don't want to hear apologies we want to your fax. host: the editor says we are committed and we would like to
9:37 am
apologize to readers and allow all of those who were damaged by our story including to the members of the fraternity. sexual assault is a serious problem and it is important that victims feel comfortable stepping forward. it is sad to think their willingness to do so might be diminished by our feelings. stephen, florida, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that rape on campus is a terrible thing that happens. whenever you take -- host: you broke up. are you still there? maybe you can call back. ray in new york, republican.
9:38 am
go ahead. caller: my comment is the similarity between the michael brown shooting reporting in this case. to me, it is very obvious. the "rolling stone" seems to not have had a clue. basically they did everything wrong they could have done wrong. it is obviously a systemic problem. the similarity to me is the reporting was more about subverting the actual truth to their truth. in other words, what matched what they wanted to believe about the story. host: so the reporter, sabrina rubin erdely has put out her own statement. she says "over my 20 years of working as a journalist, including at "rolling stone," a
9:39 am
magazine i grew up loving, i've often dealt with sensitive sources. i must weigh compassion to find the truth. in the case of jackie and her account, i did not go far enough to verify her story. i allowed my concern for jackie's well-being and my confidence in her credibility to take the place of more questioning and facts. these are mistakes i will not make again. that is from the reporter in a statement you can find on the new york times' website. what do you make of no one being fired at "rolling stone"? caller: it is lunacy. they really do not hang their hat on news so much as their reporting of popular music and stuff like that. what you just read, it is responding and yes, that is what we did.
9:40 am
what she wanted to be true had to happen all the way through the organization. host: so the report by the columbia school, the three different people at that university sat down together to do this report, a three-month investigation. two of the authors held a news conference. look at how they responded to questions about who did what and should anybody be fired. [video clip] >> it was the collective fault of the reporter, the editor, the editor's supervisor and the fact checking department. >> do you think everybody at "rolling stone" should keep their jobs? >> we pointed out systemic and institutional problems, we leave it up to "rolling stone" to decide how to deal with the problem. host: two authors of the report saying they leave it up to "rolling stone." "rolling stone" has said no one
9:41 am
will be fired. thomas, good morning. your thoughts? caller: when we dismantled the rules and regulations for the sec regarding -- the fcc regarding the fairness act it has been this, that and the other -- from fox to cnn. we established rules for the fcc. host: ok. we are getting people's reaction to the "rolling stone" magazine. they have retracted their story of rape at the university of virginia following a short by -- a report by columbia university. phone lines on your screen, republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002.
9:42 am
about 20 minutes left on today's "washington journal." a piece in "the washington times" written by robert and thomas turner. robert turner taught at the university of virginia for many years and his son attends. they write "the irony of the rolling stone libel." "women are safer at the university of virginia than many other colleges." "last december, the department of justice released a report on rape among college aged females. based on a number of studies including information provided by women, it concluded that an 18- to 24-year-old woman who did not attend college had a 50% greater risk of being raped and one who attended college. thomas houston texas. go ahead. caller: i know it is a sad fact,
9:43 am
it happens, what, every 30 minutes in the u.s.? what does congress have to say about it? harvard, this issue should come up on c-span. host: patrick, brooklyn, new york, a democrat. caller: good morning. thank god for c-span. the situation is being based on the story. they just of what is happening there is rape on college campuses. instead of trying to fix the problem, they are putting emphasis on the story whether it was right or wrong it is happening. and what they should do is try to get to the source of the problem, whether it be too much alcohol, sororities or fraternities, it is wrong. it does degrade the universities
9:44 am
and make them look like it is a place to have fun and not learn and make your life better in the future. it should be got with. not blaming the reporter or the story when it was reported incorrectly or wrong. they are putting the blame at the wrong point. the person is being raped and the victim being hurt should be heard and it should be fixed. host: "usa today" editorial board -- they say "the damage extends well beyond journalistic credibility. because date rape is often a he-said she-said allegation, it makes it harder for allegations to be believed. broader evidence suggests such accounts are relatively rare. a study found that just 6% of 130 six rape allegations over 10 years turned out to be false. other studies put false reports at anywhere from 2% to 10% more
9:45 am
than 90% of allegations are true." matt in nebraska, independent. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. you are the only media really covering does the way it should be. what is interesting is to watch other people who are commenting on the story, whether they be from your previous guest or the others. every one of them looks shifty. they are all nervous. i wonder what brian williams thinks about all this. host: ok. david, florida, republican. good morning. caller: how're you doing? it rings of the duke lacrosse case. nancy grace pretty much prosecuted the whole team on air without having any facts. when the victim quit cooperating with police, wouldn't that set up a red flag for "rolling stone
9:46 am
" to hold up on printing the story? i appreciate it. host: in other views in "usa today," written by the reporter for "rolling stone," also the president of the university of virginia as well as the president of virginia's alpha chapter of pi kappa psi writing in other "usa today" views. teresa sullivan, the president of the university of virginia. "the story did nothing to combat sexual violence. irresponsible journalism unjustly damaged the reputations of many individuals and the university. "rolling stone" falsely accused students of heinous criminal acts and falsely depicted others as an different to -- as indifferent to the suffering of classmates.
9:47 am
such false depictions reinforce reluctance victims already feel." as we told you the fraternity at the university of virginia at the heart of the story plans to sue "rolling stone" over the article. that is the front page of "the richmond times-dispatch." plans toadam in north carolina, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. i look at this holistically and try to say any problem that is there, i will tell you right now. all of these reporting agencies have really become editorialized pieces of fiction in a lot of ways. you can go to a news outlet, you can hear what you want to hear.
9:48 am
if it is somewhat in agreement with what you believe it can be tossed aside. any journalism can -- and a journalist can pretty much not be a journalist and give fluff. that is what "rolling stone" was doing, they were trying to entertain people. there is many other news outlets like fox, msnbc, they are all doing the same thing. it is egregious and it is a disservice. there are few real journalists left. c-span is one of the main outlets still in place that is possible to pass good information. anyway, "rolling stone" should fire people and they should be held accountable big-time. host: we go on to darlene -- excuse me, let's hear from adam in durham, not killing. -- in north carolina. darlene, saint paul, minnesota.
9:49 am
caller: hi. there's a lot of irresponsible reporting nowadays. it is not just "rolling stone." especially when it comes to campaigns and things like that. when you look at harry reid coming out and saying that mitt romney has not paid taxes in years and he has been anonymous source. george stephanopoulos and the left-wing media have no problem reporting these stories. nobody sues them or accuses them or rights apologies for their actions. it happens all the time. host: ok. on "the richmond-times dispatch's" website for some you can find the story. this was published sunday.
9:50 am
the columbia university's report came out sunday night. "dan was 20 when he walked off the campus of university of california, berkeley to launch what would become an iconic publication. having guided "rolling stone" to an institution wenner faces the prospect of battling to restore credibility." it goes on to say that "8:00 p.m. the columbia journalism school will release a report. wenner commission of the report which will be published on the "rolling stone" website. he said the document will be subtly presented and he is braced for criticism likely to follow up. he says when asked about criticism, "i listen to it and
9:51 am
try to learn from it." he says it is usually pretty helpful. he declined on a report that set of the story i read it once before its release online november 19. the 9000 word piece sent uva into an uproar and then crumbled under scrutiny. david in new mexico, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: jhhi greta. there's always been a problemwith the media and print. that's a rush to sensationalism. are you there? host: yeah rush to sensationalism. caller: there has always been a rush to sensationalism to get their name out there.
9:52 am
that is the big problem. there are going to be mistakes made. that is possibly what happened with "rolling stone." maybe not but that is a big problem with both print and media. host: ok. new york, democrat. your take? caller: hi. i am old, i'm 60 years old. i remember when you could tell a journalist from an opinion maker . it seems now they are all opinion makers disguised as journalists. how are we supposed to tell the difference? host: where do you get your news? caller: from all over and then try to make sense of it, which is pretty difficult. host: a democrat in new york. peter, vancouver, washington, a republican. give us your take. caller: good morning.
9:53 am
i almost hated to call on the republican line because this goes way beyond politics and all that. sadly, today america is so involved with politics and everybody fighting against each other. we need to get away from that. this has nothing to do with being politically correct. this has to do with america stopping the infighting amongst us. this is a perfect example of why it has to stop. the truth is the truth, we all know what the truth is deep inside. yes, we make mistakes. to put this on something like this where it can damage so many people how many women are not going to report a rate today because of the story? the earlier comments, the thing about campaign finance -- this
9:54 am
leads right into that. everybody wants to be right. that is sad. host: all right. ed in pennsylvania democrat. guest: i appreciate what the fellow just said. he seems to be right on target. i am struck by how often people's reputations are damaged severely by inappropriate and unchecked accusations that get printed. there's a rolling increase in momentum to build it up. there seems to be no checking. i'm struck by how they eliminated the fraternity on campus and the overreaction of everybody all based on unsubstantiated charges. host: that is what "usa today"
9:55 am
says in their opinion piece. if there is an overriding lesson to be learned from this debacle in a similar case several years ago involving members of the duke lacrosse team it is that everyone, from journalists to advocates to administrators should avoid a rush to judgment based on preconceived notions. sam, texas, independent caller. hi, sam. caller: hi. just an observation. i have listened and it seems everybody calling in has been men. i think that was an observation on my part. host: yeah, i think we've had one woman. we'd like to hear from more. we will continue the conversation. phone lines are open. i want to remind you that rand paul, the senator from kentucky, will be announcing officially that he is running for president. that will be a new eastern time here on c-span.
9:56 am
we will cover that live. that will be in louisville kentucky. he will do a fly around to early caucus states -- iowa, new hampshire, south carolina. "the washington times" reporting that he wants to be on the ballot in all 50 states. illinois, independent caller. go ahead. caller: hello. host: you are on the air. caller: i'm calling, i'm a graduate of a big ten school and also a member of a fraternity. i, and the school i went to there was very little problems with the fraternity system. my call is about, at notre dame a few years ago there were two rakes. -- two rapes.
9:57 am
a girl was raped,reported it. the police did not respond. apparently she was raped by a member of the football team. the university did not respond. she ended up killing yourself. -- herself. at the same school there was another woman raped. her report was downplayed by the police department. she finally left the school. poodle discouraged -- total disgust and dismay. that completes my call. i commend you for all the things you're doing on c-span. host: democratic caller. hi, there.
9:58 am
caller: i'd like to talk in defense of women. my daughter was raped, i found out years later. she was afraid to report it because she did not want to be put through it all again. i was raped when i was younger and i never reported it. it is something we want buried, we do not want to talk about. bringing up something like this i'm sure women have been raped at the university and they will not talk about it. i do not understand the media either when it comes to talking about things. and i don't mean to be political. when they said that president obama was not even born in the united states -- everybody knows hawaii is part of the united
9:59 am
states. i do not think they should be suing -- host: the magazine? caller: the magazine. i'm sure rapes go on every day at these universities and all over. women don't want to be put through it again. it is too hard. talking about this brings it all back up. it is too traumatic for us. host: all right. joan in minnesota. but does it for today's "washington journal." we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. enjoy the rest of your tuesday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] ♪
10:00 am
>> send a rand paul expected to kick off his campaign for the white house today with a rally in downtown louisville kentucky. we will take you there live around noon eastern time. senator paul, the second candidate, to make his campaign official. senator ted cruz announced about two weeks ago. also the iraq ambassador to the u.s. will talk about threats posed by isis. live coverage starts at about 3:00 p.m. our coverage of congressional freshman continues. here is some of our conversations.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on