tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 16, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
future of labor unions and the impact of the upcoming supreme court decisions on labor law. we will talk with mark mix, president of the national right to work legal defense foundation and david madland at the center for american progress. ♪ campaign 2016 coverage continues on c-span. donald trump in portsmouth, new hampshire. you can see that at 11:30 this morning and listen to it on c-span radio and watch it c-span.org. ted cruz in milford, new hampshire tomorrow at 5:00 in the afternoon. for more information on these events, go to c-span.org. reuters reported that hillary clinton's campaign will spend a significant amount of money on ads, especially to counter the rising support for bernie sanders. this is the iowa caucuses happened on february 1. looking at recent polling, clinton with a slight advantage in that contest.
for the first 45 minutes we want to focus on democrats. democrats only for the first 45 minutes. we want to get a sense from you if you're planning to vote for hillary clinton, bernie sanders or another candidate as the democratic nominee. if you support hillary clinton, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 if you support bernie sanders. if you support another, call (202) 748-8002. if you want to post on twitter, you can do so at cspanwj. --o when her facebook page on our facebook page. here is the story. spendinglook at ads by hillary clinton campaign. halfampaign plans to port the presidential campaign budget into advertising in the first three months of this year as he seeks to fend off an increasingly touch -- tough challenge for bernie sanders. the first quarter advertising blitz represent almost doubling
of the proportion of money the campaign devoted to spending on average during 2015. the report paints a picture of a fiscally prudent campaign operation spending heavily on digital tools and organizing last year. they areot ready to ramp up 2016 as it moves in three critical new face. that is from reuters. if you get to the new york times op-ed page, the colonists looks of the topic of that. ones posted recent by hillary clinton and the bernie sanders campaign. hillary and bernie punching, " hillary for america officials called a news conference to discuss the " sanders attack ad." they pointed out many times she said she would never go there. bernie "reject the status quo politics -- and we do a classic imperative at, it is over."
the whole point to be outside the political norm. these are principled maverick this movement in the senate was in the senate was an 8.5 hour speech against the compromises president obama made in 2010 the attack steel. we expected to stick to the standard even if it is somewhat irrational. clinton lost the president obit in the became secretary of state. we expect more in the way of can do in less annoyed elevated campaign tactics from her. those at steel of the top of the wall street in deal with the topic of guns. before we show them to you, as far as democrats only for the first 45 minutes, we want to hear about your thoughts and who you would vote for to become the democratic nominee. if you support hillary clinton, (202) 748-8000. if you support bernie sanders, (202) 748-8001. if you support another to become the democratic nominee, (202) 748-8002. you can post it on our twitter and facebook pages. as far as those ads, here they
are both hillary clinton and the bernie sanders campaign. [video clip] bernie sanders: there are two
democratic visions regulating wall street. one says it's ok to make millions big banks and tell them what to do. my plan is break up the big banks, close the tax loopholes, and make them pay their fair share. then we can expand health care to all and provide universal college education. will they like me? no. will they begin to play by the rules? you better believe it. i am bernie sanders and i approve this message. [video clip] hillary clinton: an average of 90 people are killed by guns every day. president obama was make universal background checks the law of the land. you was to make your gun manufacturers can finally be held accountable when their guns are used to kill our children. it's time to take a side. either we stand with the gun lobby only joined the president
and stand up to them. i am with him. please join us. i'm hillary clinton and i approve this message. host: the numbers
will be in your screen but as far as your current support for democratic candidates and some of the nominees, is a hillary or bernie sanders or is there another in mind? you can take the line the best represents you. let's start off with mike from california, supporter of bernie sanders. why support to him? caller: i don't think hillary clinton is electable. she is not likable. she is not a likable person. she is really an ugly person. she is classless. she has no charm at all. she cannot sell. i know the media will help her out. they always want a democrat to win. host: bill on the democrats only line. connecticut, supporter of
hillary clinton. go ahead. caller: good morning. that last guy was the republican. clintonspporting the for many years. obviously the smartest person in washington politician-wise. i far as democratic hype up, think between her and bernie its normal and quite mild compared to the other side where they are clawing each other. they are idiots. i am for her. if bernie somehow competed, i would be for him. host: why is hillary clinton a stand up over bernie sanders? specifically why? caller: she is a -- he is a one trick pony guide. break up the big banks kind of guy. there is more to it than that. and herher economic policy towards the bank and glass-steagall, it's more comprehensive than just their
riches strongest point. -- there on his strongest points. host: there was a story this morning it without democrats are looking at the proposals from both hillary clinton and bernie sanders over banks. they offer contrasting approaches to wall street regulation. is appointedlan officials prosecute wall street lawmakers, breakup of largest banks and reinstate a modern version of the glass-steagall act. that would bring into the end of some of the largest financial firms in the country including j.p. morgan chase and bank of america. break them up, the crowd chanted at his january 5 speech. mrs. clinton promises to reign in which he considers risky wall street investment. she would only break a big banks as a last resort if other policies are not effective. if banks want to stay large and complex, they would adhere to stricter rules that ensure future losses do not fall on taxpayers. to add a new tax on firms that
engage on certain borrowing and engage regulars to break up firms as they see fit. she would not order them to do so. nicholas from florida? a supporter of bernie sanders. tell us why. caller: because i believe that bernie sanders has conceptualized the issues of this country in a very understandable and direct way. i don't think there is anything in this message that involves false statements. i do believe he is truly dedicated as an individual to the individuals who need help in this country because somehow the system has opted to kick them out of it and not let them succeed in it. i think we need more people in this country who understand what democracy is. i think bernie sanders does that whereas clinton, it was now
very wealthy and obligated to individuals who have contributed to her husband's foundation, need to have someone that can make decisions and established policies that favor their continuation of their greed. i think that capitalism in this correcteds to be because competition, which is what protects citizens and is what enables organizations that are honest and want to have , helps protects the public against unscrupulous capitalists who put up false products, sony products, bad products andhony get the prices high as they can so the game will be maximum.
host: that is nicholas in florida. on twitter we have a viewer that says she has not decided that she will vote democrat and also adding that the republicans have no message. all they have is a mess. if you support hillary clinton, (202) 748-8000. if you support bernie sanders, (202) 748-8001. if you support another candidate for the democratic nominee, (202) 748-8002. for the first 45 minutes this morning democrats only. the democrats will debate tomorrow in south carolina and talk about issues of the campaign and issues regarding the economy and think you'll hear the next 45 minutes. arnell from waynesboro, tennessee. a supporter of hillary clinton. caller: she is more for the issues. she knows more about them. she is a very smart lady and she is for poor and middle class
people. she helps everybody. she has more about foreign affairs overseas and the other countries. she is for social security and health care. i just like her. she is a very smart lady. host: as far as the things you mentioned, are those things not captured in the bernie sanders campaign? does he not talk about those issues? caller: he talks about them that he is not -- he doesn't know as much as hillary does. he's a good fellow, but he's not up-to-date life she is. she is very smooth and smart about it. she is very well educated. she's just the person for the job. host: a of bernie sanders, paula
from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i am a great fan of bernie sanders and i have been for years. if you listen to joe biden, he knows that bernie is genuine. hillary will just go with the wind, whatever. policies we must care about and is for the people. what i think she is forced big corporations. host: you think that bernie sanders is electable in the general sense? caller: i certainly do. heyou look at the polls, beats all the republican candidates. hillary has problems. i agree with evidence said by the gentleman from connecticut. host: speaking of the polls,
real clear politics puts them together. what is comingt up as far as the iowa caucuses. one showed hillary hunton up by two points over bernie sanders. but you look at the widespread of those polls showing hillary can do with a four-point advantage going into the february 1 caucuses. bernie sanders leading in new hampshire with a decent margin. -- that is next to vermont but that is what is happening:-wise. maria is a supporter of hillary clinton. caller: good morning. how are you? i am a supporter of hillary clinton. she is smart. she is tough. she is resilient. experienced. for me she has the political savvy to deal with the
republican house and senate. we are hoping we are going to recapture the senate. we don't know. she is going to need to outmaneuver the republicans to get anything done. that bernie think sanders has that political savvy republicanh the senate and house. we are hoping to recapture the senate but we don't know. bernie'srry about with thosecampaign republican -- democratic in states that are purplish. that perhaps my know what to campaign with him -- might not want to campaign with him. proud set himself very democratic socialist.
i don't know if that is going to louisiana.kansas or the democratic senators, most of them come out in support of hillary clinton. i think they will work with her on the campaign trail. and if she were to be the nominee and elected, they would work with her in washington. that is why i'm for her 100%. host: when you say she would have to work with republicans if she were to win the contest, would you be ok with her compromising with republicans on certain types of issues? what is being able to work with republicans mean to you? caller: of course that is the reality of the political back-and-forth. let us remember we need to think about not allowing the perfect
to be the enemy of the good. as my senator tim kaine always reminds us. that is what it takes. we are not going to get everything that we want. republicans are not going to get everything that they want. we need to compromise otherwise we're stuck and nothing gets done. i believe in changes. host: that is maria in virginia. we are the lines differently today. a line for those that support hillary clinton, a line for those that support bernie sanders, and a line for those of you who support others. mary in new hampshire says at this point you cannot decide. good morning. caller: thanks for taking this call. i wanted to say that i was a very strong supporter of hillary clinton. to say i agree with so much of what bernie sanders said this week.
when chelsea clinton began to talk in support of her mother about the bernie sanders's health care plans, i saw an horizon s - on the - scene on the horizon. i was concerned about backbiting going on between the two candidates. i also feel that bernie sanders has a strong reputation for honesty. and that hillary clinton does not. i have to tell you i could live with either candidate very well but i am undecided now. host: do you think some of those concerns are going to play out tomorrow night in a debate? caller: you bet your bottom dollar. we will see it. what i want to see -- i'm 71.
i have used a courtesy and consideration when it comes to politics. at least i can remember it. i hope that is what we will see tomorrow night. host: that is mary in new hampshire. after that comes the primaries and the battle for the democratic nomination. y says he hasr gu no -- he has no foreign policy and his health land one ever get through congress. el niño says bernie understands the middle class and the poor. you can comment on twitter. you can give us a call on the lines. hillary clinton supporter, (202) 748-8000. did he support bernie sanders, (202) 748-8001. did he support others, (202) 748-8002. jean inhear from jackson, mississippi. he supporter of hillary clinton. caller: it's jackson, michigan. host: my apologies.
caller: i for hillary because she has been around. she knows how government works. she is strong and tough enough to not take anything from foreign leaders or the republicans. she will compromise because that's the way our government works. i have been around through elections since 1944. we need hillary in there because all the good times we've had since 1944 has been under a democratic administration. but i don'tgood man think he is electable. if you did get elected, i think the republicans would just run right over him. hillary is strong enough that that one happened. host: why do you think he is not electable? , they ares policies two socialist. -- too socialist.
the country is not ready for that. it's not him. it's the people not ready for his ideas yet. he has good ideas but he could get none of them passed in the congress you have to work with. host: this is off of our facebook. abraham says this will be my first year of voting and i will vote for bernie sanders. says a votemanuel for a republican is a vote -- to lose everything. again you can post on our facebook and twitter page as well as gives a call on the line. , this isling, virginia david is supporter bernie sanders. how are you. caller: pretty good, thanks.
i have been a supporter of bernie for about the last two months. at first i was not all that crazy about him mostly because of his age. 74 were read to me --worried me . i watched campaign because he has been saying a lot of things. and i agree with from the democratic party, especially his education reforms. and he talked about what we can do about trying to reduce the power of the top elites. i think that resonates with both parties. a lot of democrats more than people might want to think they do. movementjust the trump that is caused people to be concerned about that. my biggest concern is the democratic party itself. up until 60 years -- six or seven years ago bernie was not even considered to be part of the democratic party caucus.
now he is running as a democrat. i think if the democratic machine itself. hillary is forever part of the democratic party. -- when itthing comes to winning the general election. socialismink this concerned people have is not as strong as an issue. there is a large misunderstood -- misunderstanding what socialism is the last 90 years. since the roosevelt days. if you can get the message across to a lot that it become disaffected in the last eight or nine elections we conceded realigning and bernie might be the voice of that election. host: paul keane has a story looking at democrats and how they see the sanders campaign. specifically themes and policy laid out by the bernie sanders campaign.
state partyill and headquarters some democrats worry that a state examination could imperil candidates down the ballot in swing districts. since deja vu from 2008 when clinton -- breaking a big banks go beyond congressional democrats agenda. they are praised by an ascendant wing of the party. whenpolicy descriptions support in primaries but many democratic elites fear how they would play in a general election. democratic leaders know they cannot afford to alienate and energized already base. -- the party base. stephen williams off of twitter. rules.s made voting no baby boomers, nothing support the transpacific partnership. tonya is up next from detroit. a supporter of hillary clinton.
caller: how are you doing? i support hillary all the way. i think she is our best shot at keeping the white house. bernie sanders has good policies, things he wants to do, but they will never get passed. they control both the house and the senate. they would never vote for what bernie sanders wants to do. host: why do you think that? caller: look at how he -- they had them with president obama. bernie sanders has been in congress for a long time. what bills has he got passed? nothing. client for hillary. she can get it done. host: from a supporter bernie sanders and the virgin islands. calvin is up next. caller: good morning. if i could vote, i would vote for bernie sanders. i think the previous caller speaks to one of the issues he has right now which is whether tocan get the minority vote
support him should he become the democratic nominee. hillary clinton is so entrenched in the democratic party. i think a lot of people view his extreme.d i did too as he will have to tweak some of his policies if he's going to get broad-based support for him and for his programs. but i think what is good about bernie sanders is he is not tied to big money. you get a sense he will be able to vote according to his conscious and what his constituent needs. definitely the two things that the -- worried me about campaign is held that some of his program scenes. they are attractive. the whether he can really get the minority vote. not only can you post on twitter, you can participate in a poll. we are asking to you would you plan to vote for.
not scientific but as it stands right now 21% of those responding showing for hillary clinton and 74% of those responding show bernie sanders. when it comes to another candidate, only 5% of people registering that. the hill reporting that another to take a't opened up look at specifically hillary clinton and issues about her e-mail. this is corey bennett writing this morning. committeeongressional has launched an investigation into the security of the former secretary of state's private e-mail server. smith sentmar letters this week to four companies that played roles in maintaining and protecting the server. " understanding these company's roles to maintain her private e-mail server is critical to improving government cyber security standards." the investigation will run alongside a similar inquiry led
by the senate homeland security committee chairman ron johnson. that's on top of other investigations being done by the fbi and others as far as this issue is concerned. susie in fort washington, maryland. as a border of hillary clinton. good morning. caller: i support hillary clinton because she is more or less qualified than all the other candidate i have listened to. i have been listening to the candidates all this past year. she is the only one that has the credentials and the experience. and with the state of the country and the republicans, they have nothing to offer. anybody do is criticize that has a solution is something. that is all they do is criticize. thank you. host: from albany, new york, tim. go ahead. caller: i support bernie sanders
because he has been a transformative figure. he has pushed the debate. he's the first politician of our generation since property -- probably robert f kennedy to push the debate and not try to triangulate and pull off a few independent voters, but challenge the republicans the safety of the issues confronting the american people. we have policing, financial reform, ethics, the way campaigns are funded, poverty. these are real issues facing middle-class and poor americans. bernie is standing up for them against the money classes. those issues have been ignored since robert f kennedy come -- kennedy's campaign. i think hillary's time has passed. she has been a disaster as a candidate. get a chance in 2008 and could not gain enough momentum to win the nomination. it's not going to be any better this year. if he does win the nomination, i don't feel the electability argument is sufficient.
in 70 different ways from challenging the notion that a 74-year-old is too old. ares promoting ideas that energizing young people. energizing african-americans and latinos and other minorities. he is showing that age is just a number. it's his ideas that are causing people to be excited. host: how do you think the sanders campaign will play out in new york considering when she was in congress the former secretary of state represented new york? i have nothing against hillary representing new york. she was not that popular overall in new york. she won the she certainly had her detractors. so many people have an opinion of hillary that are numbers are not going to shift. people are just getting to know
bernie sanders. this label of socialism is such a nonissue. he is calling for policies that are supported by -- he's trying to rally support for policies that a small d democrat he's callingrat, for google to vote in creating a mass movement. he's the first politician of our generation has tried to do that, challenging voters to say when republicans say social security and medicare are going bankrupt, that's completely false. they want that to happen. he's the first politician of our generation to call poverty and those types of issues, bring those to light. host: got you. from new york. as far as endorsements are concerned, a couple of come out for both hillary clinton and bernie sanders. for bernie sanders, it came from "the nation," magazine. the right people can trust him career he doesn't oh his
to the financial overlords of the status quo. host: again, that's from "the nation," magazine. earlier this week, it was planned parenthood that through their support for hillary clinton at an event that took place in new hampshire. this is the seal richards, the president of planned parenthood, and that endorsement. [video clip] >> in this election, with the attacks on women's health and rights even more, we don't need just a friend, a solid vote supporting statement, we need a fighter. it was hillary clinton who first said to the world that women's rights are human rights. and human rights are women's rights once and for all. [applause] still some folks who don't believe in that, and the real problem is, several of them are running for president of the united states of america.
we -- calls,do is that hillary clinton. is the mostel she experienced person running for president of the united states. she has had tons of foreign-policy experience, she has been on the inside, and she is, believe it or not, honest. this playground bullying tactic that the republican party likes to do, calling her dishonest is merely that. she is as honest as the day is long. you can take anybody's words out of context and make them sound dishonest. they have done it time and time and time again. but hillary clinton is a strong woman, and woman is the keyword. a lot of people, especially on
the republican side, do not want a woman to take a leadership position. as far as planned parenthood book ted cruz endorsed a -- he wrote the preface of the book that was on msnbc with rachel maddow that suggested out and killing people who worked for planned parenthood. it was no longer than a month after that that we had a massacre at a planned parenthood clinic. that is the kind of man ted cruz is. whether or not he's eligible to run for president, we will see about that. but hillary clinton is the best choice to leave this country. cruz, aeaking of ted lawsuit filed concerning the electability of ted cruz, the nbc news reporting a veteran attorney in houston has challenged the canadian born
senator's eligibility to be president. he asked the supreme court to decide if his birth to american mother and a cuban father while they lived in calgary violates the constitution's natural born citizen requirements. he argued that because his mother's american who became a u.s. citizen of birth, but the supreme court has previously consider the eligible he donaldn, which is rival trump has repeatedly questions his eligibility. the story prompted a tweet from donald trump on this very issue, setting out on his official twitter page saying ted cruz was born in canada and was a canadian citizen until 15 months ago. lawsuits have been filed with more follow. i told you so. that's how he finishes that. also concerning ted cruz, the new york times is reporting this morning a story by mike mcintyre the second campaign loan filed in 2012, takes a look at the source alone of
concern, saying the republican presidents of candidate ted cruz already faces scrutiny for not disclosing a goldman sachs loan he used for the 2012 senate campaign. he also failed to disclose a second one from citibank for the same race. host: if you are interested more in the birthright issue, as far as his eligibility of things like that, that, that's the topic of our program for tomorrow morning at 7:45. learn more about that topic, what's meant by it, and how it plays out into the ted cruz campaign. also, donald trump has an event today you can see live. he may bring up this issue, he will probably bring up other issues as well. you can see that 11:30 today as part of the road to the white house series. portsmouth, new hampshire is where he will be. you can see the rally and listen to it on c-span radio, and find out more information about it at c-span.org.
up next,pennsylvania talking about his first support is concerned, hillary clinton or bernie sanders, or another, a supporter bernie sanders. good morning. caller: happy new year. my first call for 2016. i want to thank c-span, it wasn't for them, i wouldn't know a lot about bernie sanders. senate,ched him in the i watched him on the tom barkley show, the man is knowledgeable, ok? hillary to get into the mud slinging. i know the media encourages that. it would be nice if they work together. even i've mended my ways. last year i'd say i would vote for bernie and not over hillary, but i'm so afraid of a republican getting in there, i watched the debates. they don't talk about the issues area bernie hit the nail on the head, he says the thing is, all of the skills of the economy.
whether it's -- you give people jobs and give them dignity, and the united states will grow strong. we all need to work together, not fight each other. what gets me is its diplomatic, they look at that is a weakness. he's getting called a communist already, which they did back in fdr's era. and that's all we are headed for comic people would look into that, and do a little bit of research, even get on the youtube and find out the speeches he's made, he would learn a lot about him. bernie,g to vote for that if i have nother choice, i will vote for hillary. host: from twitter, if you are says the jim webb, formally in the race, and got out of it saying jim webb could win if he ran as an independent. surely come from modesto, illinois. you were next, a supporter of hillary. caller: i think hillary is the
smartest person there is. she's for the women, and also for our children. and for health care. that's all i have to say. host: did you ever consider bernie sanders at all? caller: no. host: why not? caller: he hasn't put out anything that interests me yet in what he's going to do, and how he's going to do it. host: from connecticut, a supporter bernie sanders, here is mark. good morning. caller: hey, pedro, how are you doing? i'm voting for bernie sanders, he's the best candidate, he supports the small guy. hillary is too tied to big business. if you don't think bernie can win, just go out and vote. many democrats to go out and vote. i appreciate the call. host: as follows hillary
clinton, you don't think she's for the small guy? caller: i don't. the clintons of heather opportunity in office. bill clinton blew it when he was in there and gave the house -- presidency to the republicans. policiesee where her are anywhere in line with what on theexperiencing here lower end of the income spectrum. host: do you think the proposals the bernie sanders has made -- kenny carry those out -- 10 he carry those out as president of the united states? caller: if the people get out and support him, -- it really, if you look at congress, they have to get out of get these people out of congress, they are the ones who are holding everything out. ideas have progressive flow, as long as the people -- we put people who think that way
and office. we got to stop thinking we can't get people like bernie into office, and get out and vote. host: that is mark in connecticut. the washington post also reporting that maryland state officials had little to say friday about a criminal probe into the former governor martin furniture purchase of from the state of a steep discount when he left the office last january. the family bought dozens of pieces of furniture and other items from the governor's mansion after state officials deemed it excess property, according to state records. the family paid $9,638 for beds, chairs, desks, lamps, and other items from the living quarters that originally cost taxpayers $62,000. the baltimore sun reported on this unit -- furniture purchase. host: houston, texas. ashley is next, supporter of hillary clinton.
good morning. caller: good morning. i support hillary clinton. she has been right there, she's fought, she's a good person. and very highly intelligent. i do not see anybody this qualified, other than her. i think bernie sanders is a nice man, but he reminds me of a dithering old man. i'm sorry, i would not vote for him. host: as far as hillary clinton specifically, what policy do you like of hers the most, and tell us why. caller: she is just a fighter, that's what i like about her. she's going to get out there and fight. for the little person, and for all people, for as i'm concerned. i think she's a wonderful person, i have always supported her, and i always will. i will not vote for bernie sanders. host: a sanders supporter who lives in north beach, maryland. this is marylin, good morning. caller: i'm a very strong
supporter of bernie sanders, i will tell you the first reason is is extremely tactful, is extremely knowledgeable, he also has voted strongly against the iraq war, when hillary clinton voted for it. gmo's,ng other things, which we know are dangerous for us, hillary was trying to convince people that actually sell them, was telling them the gmo's would be more sellable to the public if they called them drought resistant. saying hee said it was against gmo's, as he has always been in the congress, hillary is now saying she's against them. tpp, now she'sr against it. she was also 40's don't stone xl, now she's against it. hillary clinton has a consistent record of flip-flopping, and i do believe she would get us involved in a middle east war, which i'm very concerned about.
'sdon't like chelsea clinton attacks on bernie. we have a thing is that bernie's single-payer health plan that american supports by 80%, hillary also supported. on twitter is a photograph tellsating where hillary bernie she supported this health plan. so hillary clinton, do not trust her as far as one can throw her, as my grandmother would say. host: republicans are meeting in baltimore this week as part of their annual retreat to talk about policy and issues they want to take on this year. one of the stories coming out of there as saying it was republicans that will write the platform for the 2016 campaign, cording to house speaker, paul ryan, saying after a three-day retreat, house republicans emerged with a plan to attack five policy areas -- national security, the economy, health care, and the constitution, but stopped short of promising legislation on any of them. the house will set a task forces to complete the policies by the
time we have a nominee. host: they are calling 2016 a generational defining moment. host: terry in california, a supporter of hillary clinton. caller: hello. i'm for hillary clinton, i believe she is the most experienced, talented, and proper person for the job. my question about her is the fact that this country would probably not elect her, because of the fact that she is a woman. this troubles me greatly.
i don't know how qualified the person has to be, especially as a woman, we are always held to higher standards. this mockery in the republican party this going on right now in this election is a joke. and yet, it's gaining momentum. and that scares me. bernie sanders is 75 years old. i will be 80, life goes on. with his mental problems the last two years of his presidency, they were hiding outsiders. i think they are going to find sanders on these points -- his one step health plan, as if he's going to redo it was a stroke of a pen, isn't going to happen. this miracle stuff that comes out from the mouths of these candidates scares me. as far as the young people's vote, that's what brought obama in, plus the fact that he was black. and look what happened with him. his lack of experience has
worked against him. my concern about bernie sanders is that his lack of experience, his socialism, his views are wonderful, but they are almost utopian. young people don't vote in the midterm election. they vote in this kind of election. waswhat happened with obama he rallied the him people, just like bernie sanders is rallying them. then we lost the house and the deadlock to cold, and that i think is going to be the same thing with bernie sanders. as far as hillary is concerned, she has weathered and warm. from davon inar blacksburg, virginia, supporter of bernie sanders. caller: good morning. i will vote for hillary if she is the nominee, something that a lot of sanders supporters have said. and i agree with. one thing that really stands out for me, and one of the reasons i
think he is pulling from the younger demographic who, incidentally, have changed. young people are involved in politics. young people in this generation have seen what's happening as a result of not being involved. one of the biggest issues i believe will drive them to the polls is that he wants to end the war on drugs. bernie appreciates how absurd our laws regarding marijuana are, nationwide. use the first and only president shall candidate who has come out strongly to take a stance on changing those laws. which then will have repercussions in our obscene incarceration system in america. so he understands that as well, which i think also resonates more with younger people. bernie also, most notably, leads hillary clinton in all the polls against all of the republican candidates. so he must absolutely is electable, he continues to draw
enormous, very enthusiastic crowds, despite not getting much media coverage. and it's there in the pudding. it's there in the polling. host: thank you. we will hear from john in sterling, virginia, supporter of hillary clinton. go ahead. let me push the button. john from virginia, good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i want let you know that the people who are calling, some of them are saying they support ernie. bernie, his idea doesn't work in america. he could run as a presidency in germany or somewhere. reality is this -- the only reason the republicans don't want to face hillary, because they know she has more experience than anybody. att worries me the most is the end of the day, i hope nothing comes up about the background of hillary clinton. because that's what makes me worry. at the same time, with the republicans are doing right now
is exactly what barack obama did to romney. they want to damage her at the early stage. you say everything about her, so that people will not think she is trustable. do you really think that ted cruz is trustable? do you really think marco rubio is trustworthy? do you really think about donald trump -- this is ridiculous. you have to understand, people have to wake up. america, the first female president could be hillary clinton. i think we can have a good female as a president. it happened in bangladesh, it happened in other countries. they can do the job. john in sterling, virginia, talking about his candidate of choice. if you want to continue want to post on our twitter page, we there.whole -- a poll 29% say they would throw their support behind hillary clinton to see her be the democratic
nominee. 60% goes to bernie sanders, another candidate altogether, 11%. coming up on this program, we talk about uncertainty in china's financial markets, and especially how it's been having a worldwide effect, you probably saw with the stock market reports this week. we are by bloomberg scott lanman . later on in the program, the supreme court heard a case this week looking at the legality of fees paid by public sector union employees. a discussion about that case and its applications will be on later in the program. but first, on amerco history tv and book tv weekend, is the focus on the history and literary life of hartford, connecticut. here's the mayor of the state's capital city, talking about the historic connections to the insurance industry, and other factors impacting the economy of the city. [video clip] >> hartford is located in the central connecticut area,
halfway between new york city and boston on the banks of the connecticut river. it claims the title insurance capital the world. we are still a center for the insurance industry. it is the backbone of the economy here in hartford. we also are the state capital, and a lot of state government's house here. historically been the center of manufacturing, and the greater hartford region, we still are. one of the things i hope hartford can do is recover some of the manufacturing. that is sothings amazing hartford is how much this small city has contributed to the election will life of our country. starting from the very earliest days, thomas hooker, the founder so -- founder of hartford was the first to state the idea that political authority derives from the consent of free people. that, you have mark twain, harriet beecher stowe, intellectual powerhouses of the
19th century really change the course of american history. in the 20th century, in a more subtle form, poet wallace worked at the hartford insurance company and composed his poetry every day as he walked to work, was one of the most important modernist poets in history. what i love about wallace stevens is, he really joins in himself both industry and art together. which is really what hartford is all about. if you look at hartford's history -- industry and arts have flourished side by side and have supported one another. >> "washington journal," continues. host: joining us now is scott lanman, from bloomberg, the international economic policy editor, talking about global affairs today. particularly what's going on in china. on the front page of the "wall street journal," they talk about the u.s. stock market sliding into a global row. how is this connected to china?
guest: some of it is based on sentiment about the u.s. economy , there's data showing weak retail sales yesterday. china has been in some degree of economic market turmoil and slow down for several months now, going back to august. the sentiment is weighing pretty markets, it'sbal weighing probably more on markets that it is the economy itself. continue toarkets be so volatile, the stock market keeps plunging there, it does further affect worldwide sentiment, which could affect business investments and have deeper effect on the u.s. economy. why is china and the condition it is, and the best way to understand it? up theirina opened economy after decades of being
, they in the late 1970's had basically come as they opened their economy, a boom for several decades rowing at 10% or more a year. and then, after the 2008 financial crisis, everything collapsed, not just in the u.s. economy, but the world as a whole. china's economy may have slowed down severely, except the government there has prompted up for years with stimulus. those issues are coming to roost , there's a very big pile of debt in the economy, their debt is well over 200% of gdp, when you include all kinds of debt now. has been hiked to the dollar for some time, loser pegged that used to be. the dollar strengthening so much, and china -- the currency was strengthening for a while. but now, with the economy m thening, there's a da
conversed in terms of the currency weakening. that further weakens the economy. there's a loop where people are trying to send their money out of the country, and in the meantime, you have economist party led government in china that is trying to keep and maintain control, like they can control the economy at the same time, opening up to markets while the same power. it's a delicate balance they are trying to do. all of these things are kind of bursting out into the open now. we are seeing it play out in real time. host: when you see what's happening in the u.s. market, is the reason we are so tied is because china owns a lot of u.s. debt? is that what we're seeing this play out in the markets? guest: that's a common misperception, i think, about china's ownership of u.s. debt. trillion ofover $1 u.s. treasury securities, but in fact, the demand for u.s.
treasuries is so great around the world that china is selling treasuries in the past few months, it's not have that big of an effect on the market itself. market is mores. tied to the sentiments in china, china's economy is slowing down. china's economy affects many other emerging market economies around the world, the global economy is weak, china's currency is weakening, they're going through an ecomic transition. and all of those things can add have a bearish impact on the u.s. stock market, but it's not really specific related to the ownership of u.s. debt. guest: how is the chinese leadership -- what are they doing specifically to stabilize? guest: they're trying to make sure two things happen. but the economy has a controlled slowdown, and not any kind of crash, there try to make sure has morecurrency also
of a controlled weakening, and not any kind of sharp devaluation. they've taken some steps towards depreciation and devaluation, but nothing really to severe. breaky really let the dam , it would cause even more serious turmoil. they are trying to control the plunge in the stock market. they've had -- people are getting confused over their policy because just a couple of weeks ago, they started a policy where if the stock market plunged a certain amount, they would shut down the market. that happened twice in the first week of the year, and then they decided to scrap that policy. some people are taking mixed signals about what they are trying to do. it goes to the whole issue of trying to open up the economy for markets so it can grow, and also maintaining state control, and maintaining communist party control over the nation. host: our guest is with us to
explain these issues going on in china's economy, specifically how it affects the world in the u.s.. if you want asking questions on this topic, democrats, call (202) 748-8000, republicans, call (202) 748-8001, an independents call (202) 748-8002 . is this a concern for the u.s. government, and what potentially could we do to counteract the impact on the u.s. economy? guest: if the stock market does keep plunging, you are going to start seeing more people get concerned. right now, the federal reserve is in the process of trying to decide how fast to raise interest rates this year. they just had their first increase in almost a decade. a month ago. if the markets continue to be plunging, they know that lower they markets have what
call the wealth effect on u.s. consumers. with every leg down a certain tend to spenders a certain percentage less and they have to take that into account when the outlook plays out. when there would be any government response, that depends on whether any companies or major banks would actually run into trouble. so far, that hasn't happened yet. all the signs that the fed and government talk about point to better health for banks and companies then during the financial crisis. host: the first call comes from jean in sarasota, florida. democrat line, you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: a heavy balance of trade, the situation with china's going to get even more favorable for the chinese. do to science and engineering. we are helping them in three major ways of energy.
already, dow chemicals is producing methanol for their cars, which are based on a ford automotive engine that's the most efficient methanol on the planet earth. that's also not going to be increased, now that we have for the closest states, start us -- starting with louisiana, building a $2 billion facility to take our natural gas and turn it to methanol. in a $9 billion facility to take intoethanol and turn it other petroleum products, all of which is being shipped to china. the other three states that are going to be doing this or taxes, washington, and oregon. their total production of these first six plants will be in the neighborhood of about 20 billion gallons of methanol year. host: will you like her dress -- our guest to address? caller: what i'm saying is we are conjoined. we can help them out greatly.
governmenting is our allow this to happen. in addition to that, by the way, lockheed martin is putting a new -- we have pollution free ways of doing this. host: only because the want to get other callers in and have our guest respond, we will stop you there. guest: i'm not familiar with the specific issues of fuel production. but the caller was talking about. is thing we can talk about the trade balance, he did mention the trade balance between u.s. and china. , the u.s.een going up trade deficit against china, some people are concerned about that. hand, u.s. exports to china i think i may be around 8% of the overall u.s. exports, so it's one reason people say maybe they china slowdown won't have that huge of an effect on the united states. host: from mississippi,
independent line, john, you are next. caller: what i'd like to point out is that because of the early 1900 ruling by the united states of print court, which took the responsibility of corporations out of what has -- what is best for the country and humanity, and put it on the obligation to the investors, we have taken out the human factor to count pennies and numbers, rather than look at the impact to the environment, and to the welfare of people, of each and every country. when you talk about china having a growth rate diminished to 4%, 5%, 6%, as it is a tragedy. i find that entertaining, if we had that growth rate in america, it would be outstanding and people would be employed. stop and take look at how we have lost track of our obligation to stewardship for our fellow man, and for the environment.
i'm not familiar with that specific decision you're talking about. in terms of china's growth rate, that is true. if the u.s. were growing at 4% to 6%, that would be considered potentially great success. maybe to successful in this country. -- too successful in this country. relative to where it's been growing, that is a major slowdown. for that would have major effects around the world, especially on places like australia, brazil, and other countries where china has bought many commodities from in recent years. the strongest part of the attorneys, me is exports, and if that's the case, where the strength and that? guest: china's economy is in a transition from the export led boom that had a growing at 10% for such a long time, to now being more domestic we focused
on services, on consumer goods. they do have a very large, burgeoning middle-class population and still has a lot of room to grow in terms of no class incomes moving to be a higher income society. overall, people's incomes are still much lower than developed nations. they have room to grow there. the export and manufacturing part has been diminishing as an overall proportion of the economy. and services are actually slightly more than that since a couple of years ago. the: is that the focus of new president, to change the aspect of that part of it china's economy? guest: that was already tookning before xi jinping office of years ago. it's been ongoing, more under the previous president. continuous rule by the commonest party there.
they are seeing these issues, they are trying to make this transition without being too disruptive to either the domestic economy with the world economy. host: on the democrat line, michelle from wisconsin. caller: good morning. i was wondering how much exactly do we do export trade with china? how much are we dependent on them? chinak we lose jobs to that we could be doing over here to help our economy. and also, with china one of the likeries that was doing cyberattacks on businesses and our government here, in our own country? because that's also a big concern, his other countries being able to use the prevents -- get information. personal information about
federal workers and state workers, other types of people. how must we really rely on that country? i personally don't like the fact that we do affiliate with certain things with that country. thank you for taking my call. guest: thanks. of u.s.it's around 8% exports to china accounts for. that's either second or third mexico, as farnd as u.s. trading partners. i'm not sure the exact number. it's somewhere around there. account for a large proportion, but it's not something that would be critical to the u.s. economy. the stars the cyberattacks go, the whitething that
house, obama administration and other parts of the government and congress obviously have been pretty concerned about in recent years. there's been a lot of allegations of hacking. they have been trying to work on those issues. mentionedar as you earlier, stimulus, is this akin to what we did in the united states is fars the stimulus program is concerned? , should china pour into its own economy, and what is the end result? guest: in 2008, they started a $500lus program around billion or $600 billion. that was more of a direct stimulus to the economy. they cut interest rates, etc. since then, they've been doing other types of smaller scale stimulus or more below the radar stimulus. theyffect has been that are using different tools to prop up the economy. the question is whether they are
going to anymore big stimulus? most people would say probably not. the government really doesn't want to, because that would result in even more debt building up, and more leverage. they know that's a potentially serious issue. more and more people have become concerned about that in recent years. host: from texas, independent line. jim is up next. caller: i want to say good morning. no one else seems to be saying that. concernedwife are about our 401(k)s and mutuals and so forth. what i would like to know is how bad is that going to affect us towards our retirements? guest: it really depends on what kind of mutual funds you are in. if you were in bonds mutual funds right now, you might actually see a boost because as the stock market goes down, a lot of people have been buying bonds and u.s. treasuries.
if you are in stocks, that could be more of a concern. it defends -- depends on each individual's portfolio. host: the "wall street journal," reminds this isn't the same meltdown is 2008. take a picture of what was going on there and compared to now. guest: in 2008, you had a crisis -- from the when u.s. mortgage market that had these securities and i had some private mortgages -- subprime mortgages. people were defaulting on loans, losing their homes, had ripple effects throughout the system. the banks -- many banks were on the verge of failure. caused all of the u.s. and around the world. unprecedented stimulus measures. the u.s. has--
recovered, has short of its banking system. -- shorted up its banking system. now china has debt, and they are worried it could have similar ripple effects to the 2008 crisis, china affecting the world like the u.s. affects the world. it hasn't gone to that point yet. think the article is trying to tell people that is a different situation. host: richmond, virginia, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. the chinese economy is largely controlled by the government. about'd like him to talk is how much can we depend upon the information that comes from china, in terms of reporting economic activity, economic growth, etc. is it reliable and transparent?
is it something we can look at and say it accurately represents what's going on in that country? thank you. guest: that's a great question. i spent three years in china as the china economy editor for bloomberg, trying to figure out this very question. nobody fully trust the information that comes out of china's government. we have a report that shows the foromy growing at 7% a year several years in a row, without any change, it arises skepticism. some people think the economy is growing in a much slower rate, 3%, 4%, 5%. other people say it's really not that far off from 7%, even if it bounces around a bit. china'see of trust in economic data is better than it was a few years ago, but it is still far from complete.
reliablet have a unemployment rate or job figures the way we have in the united states. one thing you said at the beginning, the government controls the economy. the government has loosen control of the economy, so you have a much more flourishing private market, private business system. bee of that data may not fully reflected in the government's gdp figures, which make some people think there are some parts of the consumer economy in china that are undercounted that might actually be growing faster than the government says. host: our guest has been economic international policy editor from bloomberg since november 2014. he's covered the federal reserve and the federal can indications commission. often twitter, if you were asked as china transitions to a consumer-based market, will this
inform federal interest rate decisions? guest: as far as china's position to a consumer market, with everything that's happening in china as a whole, it china does not make that transition successfully to consumer market, on balance, that weighs down on the fed's decisions to raise interest rates. if things collapse in the global economy, and really make it a dangerous world, the fed may even hold off. right now, traders in the market are thinking that the fed is -- they may only raise rates once or twice this year, where the fed put out forecast words policymakers said they think they might raise rates four times this year. we wrote an article about that in the day. that's going to have an effect, for sure. host: from port st. lucie, florida, independent line.
scott, you are on the guest. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. sawuestion basically is, we a lot of our banking industry best we sold a lot of our banking industry to china. china brought up a lot of real estate. wet leaves you speculate, didn't see the mortgage collapse banks --nd so a lot of real estate to china, knowing this stuff is going to collapse -- year ago. finally. look at the market, it's collapsing. it's definitely affecting china, it's affecting everyone. however, something tells me that we knew these things were going to collapse during i was wondering why they were selling so much property, and so many bankshares, if you could elaborate a little on that, and what you think about that for me as an outside speculator, a
single private taxpayer. thank you. will try to address some of those issues. there has been increase in chinese people and companies buying real estate property in united states. i think one of the most prominent examples was the waldorf-astoria hotel in new york. the chinese writing homes around the country. transactions,ate they have money and people are selling to them. some people have compared it to the japanese buying up real and 1990's.e 1980's that didn't end so well. i don't know if it's an issue of foresight, or seeing how things play out. but one thing that is driving the i will mention is that
chinese are trying to find places to invest their money abroad. the stock market is so volatile that people can't really invest in it the way they can invest -- americans can invest in mutual funds. one safe place the chinese people see and comfy see their money going is real estate abroad. it's not just in the united states. majorher places like financial centers where they are buying these kinds of things. host: the recent addition of bloomberg magazine has a story talking about china's capital flight, moaning going out of china. is that part of what you are describing as far as investment real estate? -- money going out of china. guest: people are looking for investments to put the chinese currency.
but also, with the chinese economy weakening and with the chinese currency weakening, that creates more incentive for money to flow out of the country and be in countries with strong currencies like the united states right now. host: from chili, michigan, republican line. this is brad. have you ever seen the movie catch-22? made in the 60's? guest: i have not seen that. caller: it was about a bomber group, basically, it's the rise of the multi-conglomerate with no allegiance to any country. in light of that, and with the way our technology has been sent over to china, paid for by the american taxpayers, and politicians that talk a good game, but don't really pay us any meaningful legislation to stop that, what does it even matter what we think? i will take your answer. guest: it's hard for me to
address that question. that obviously, it's something that politicians are concerned about. issues,with technology i know the obama administration and congress have been talking about this kind of issues. host: we want to get your thoughts on china, and another a factor affecting the u.s. economy, which is oil. the front page of the new york times says there is an oil glut growing in the united states and worldwide. far as explain as willing -- falling oil prices, normally domestic league, -- not only domestically, but across the world. guest: people are surprised how far the price of oil has fallen. it fell a lot in the previous year, it sort of stabilized, and now it's gone down even further. the biggest effect in the united states, or one of the biggest effects, is on the energy industry. the shale or boom -- shale oil
boom, a lot of drilling sprung up in parts of midwest, texas, north dakota, that having affect on those businesses, making it tougher for them. oil, lower price of economists say it's supposed to help consumer spending. necessarily have the boom affect the people thought it would. people are putting the money in their pockets that they save as opposed to spending more money on filling up the gas tank. the low price of oil is also reflected in china and the global economy being fairly weak. you have this glut of oil on the market, like the article talks about. showll of those factors how it's contributing to the weakness right now. host: what about opec nations? , the respondent -- how are they
responding? guest: from what i've seen in recent months, is that of cutting production, they maintained the level of production, and saudi arabia has been a key driver behind that policy. to weed outs trying oil producers, particularly in the united states, who threaten the dominance of saudi arabia. florida.bay, this is keith, go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for giving us this information. there is so much here. i don't think a lot of americans, even educated americans understand the china and america at relationship. there are so many different factors, especially like our trade to them because of a higher dollar, like you were talking about, that cuts down on our trade. i had a few questions. first, a quick comment, one of the major factors is labor costs.
there are regulations and there are also going and buying up a lot of rarer commodities and other commodities that we are not doing. we ask the just opened, reopened the one rarer mine we had. we have to import all of our raw materials, it seems like. , i've seen ans company locally spend $1 million to get approved for their business over two years, and then in the final process, after zoning and everything else, a lot of redshirts from the community came in and stop the business. in china, they can have it built and running within six months. here's my question -- are they buying up this cheap oil? that's one thing don't have his oil. is oil.
host: let's talk about that one first. guest: china is an oil importing nation. we get most of their oil from abroad. one reason oil prices have gone down because china -- the forecast for china to keep buying up tons of oil have not quite come to fruition. host: fort worth, texas, independent line. jack is next. caller: hello, thanks for taking my call. two questions, i will try to make this as quick as possible. first of all, does your guests see the chinese reaching out to more experienced economic leaders across the globe, as they've done with the hedge fund managers from chicago, lately, to help them learn how to manage their crisis situation?
being a relatively inexperienced government, trying to control economy. the second question is do you see the u.s. government is becoming more cooperative on issues of economic issues with the chinese, it seems to me that the u.s. corporate base has become very -- as far as the west coast, more cooperative with sharing with the chinese. i will close with that, thank you for taking my call. guest: in response to your first question, i don't know specifically of the chinese reaching out to americans, or other experts abroad for crisis experienced, maybe i missed that. on the second one, u.s. china economic corporation -- there are various ways that the governments and the administration try to have a
dialogue with china, the obama administration has this annual thing called the u.s. china economic dialogue, where diplomats and treasury people and other business leaders and government leaders go to china or they come here and talk about various economic issues and how to resolve them. debate how much progress they are really making. there is this dual power --ationship, where they want it's in both countries best interest to cooperate, but there are other areas where they have trouble. jay fromrida's next, florida. are you there? go ahead.
let's go to bruce in mississippi, republican line. caller: i was calling because i wanted him to address the opportunity in the market. the biggest decliners in the market were the petroleum companies. get your newspaper or google and look at the people who are losing trade petroleum companies have lost the marginal butrities have lost, companies who have been strong, they are doing well during this economy. in the chinese are buying america because it's the smartest place to invest long-term. if the poor had money to invest in markets, the best they could do would be some of the marginal securities. as far as what the president said, even though i am a republican, but the truth is still the truth. and could he address the fact that the client in the market
has been primarily petroleum companies. thank you. sorry, i'm not familiar with exactly what the issue is here. clearly, the low price of oil has an effect to energy companies, and people have different investing strategies. host: give us a sense of what to look for when it comes to china's economy, and are we going to see more reverberations like we saw with the stock market this week? guest: it remains to be seen. i think there are increasing worries that there could be more times like that to come next year, especially as pressure grows on their currency to depreciate as they search for ways to prop up the economy so that not too many people lose their jobs. it's entirely possible that the worst is over, but i think
people are more vigilant and more tuned into these kinds of things that can happen this year. it wouldn't be surprising at all if we are still in for some wild rides with that. host: scott lanman from bloomberg, thanks for your time. we are going to talk about public-sector employee unions, and if they can be forced to pay fees for collective bargaining. that was a subject of the case that was before the u.s. supreme court this week. larger case and this implication is mark mix and david madland, with the center for american progress. that's as "washington journal," continues after this. ♪
>> for this year's documentary contest, students are telling us the issue they want the presidential candidates to discuss, and we are hearing about the students as they produce their videos. here's a tweet from andrew hanno, and eighth-grade social studies teacher in winston salem, with caroline. he's recording intros at the white house. virginia congressman tweeted help georgia, sally, and jesse with their c-span student cam project in roanoke. good luck. students in hospers, arizona tweeted more of our day at the capitol, thanks again, arizona state representative john vines and senator clark for the two or -- tour. a social studies teacher tweeted interviewing j valentine 25 for student cam project about voting. the deadline is january 20,
2016, the winners will be announced on march 9. for more of mission, visit our website. -- more information, visit our website. is martin was the king junior day, and with congress on in session, we have featured programs on all three c-span networks. on c-span and 11:30 a.m. eastern, live coverage of the british house of commons debate on whether to ban donald trump from their country. that debate expect the last three hours. coverage will reiterate 8:00 eastern. tv,-span two possible william t jones and his book the march on washington. jobs, freedom, and the forgotten history of civil rights. went to reorganize this march that he called off in 1941, everyone said you need to get martin was looking -- martin luther king. will support you, but let's expand the goals of the march. the march is not just about
winning equal access to jobs, fighting employment determination, it's also about winning the right to vote in the south. >> at 8:30, georgia representative john lewis recalls his involvement in the civil rights movement in his on the american history tv on c-span3 at 2:00 p.m. eastern, international history professor at the london school of economics center and local science. iran's partnership with united states. >> iran has to look to a third power to preserve its independence and sovereignty against the imperial ambitions of britain and russia. in the 1930's, they looked to germany to play that role. after the second world war, a whole generation of iranians had no imperial ambitions and no history of colonialism in the region. >> that is 8:00 on real america. reverendnterview with
dr. martin luther king jr. is nonviolent approach to civil rights. his comments on president kennedy's -- and gandhi and his influence. for the complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: a case before the supreme court on specifically labor unions. we are joined by mark mix and the president of the national right to work week foundation. and thening us is david author of the book "hollowed out." thank you for joining us. let's talk about the specifics of the case. specifically, this week that with public unions. what is this case about and what are the larger issues involving this? providenions have to
service for everyone, all workers in a particular government agency. whether they represent those corporations or not. the supreme court was designing -- deciding whether or not the , notthey can collect workers who have never had to join the union or if these fees are legal or not. the big issue is this is a continuation of a larger attack on workers and their ability to join unions. that is a troubling thing in the future because it is very hard to imagine how to have a strong middle class without strong unions. host: specifically this was public-sector workers. guest: this case is about teachers in california. teachers are a big part of public sector workers that are unionized. we do not know where the supreme court will go. this might just be localized to teachers, but all about all
sector workers. host: mr. mix, fill-in this conversation because the topic of fees was one thing. that is an important part of this discussion. has gotten court back to the point of the first amendment that whether or not by thisviolated compulsory fee structure that forces people to support an organization that speaks for them. this case was brought by employees by nine teachers from the state of california. andrmer member of the union the teacher tried to change the union from the inside and cannot do that. there were significant disagreements about various issues that everyone have to agree to -- everyone had to accept because the union was exclusive. she finally said enough is enough and she fought back.
this case builds on a series of cases that go back to 1977. that was the case that the right to work foundation -- the court created this structure that regulates compulsory fees and says some of this could be paid, some could be charged, some could be condition employment and some of it came. over the course of 1977 two 2015, there has been a steady attempt to move that issue back to the first amendment. for the first time, a case we the courtn 2014, finally got back to the first amendment question, what is called strict scrutiny. the case did not get to the street scrutiny level and did not question constitutionality in this decision. we finally moved to a case called leonard 91 in 2012, and now harrison 2015.
whether or not i can compel you to speak for me when i disagree with you. host: these are not for lobbying purposes, but general purposes and welfare of the employee. guest: we need to get into that, because you need to unpack that concept. it is about fees, but these fees are compelled. if you do not pay these fees, no one can be forced to join the union. ofy can be forced up to 100% fees to keep their jobs. this question brings that issue to the table. , everything that government unions do is political because they are readjusting government. how they allocate resources is how we allocate taxpayer money. therefore, all of that affect how government works itself and how it spends its money. host: what about the first amendment idea? guest: 40 years ago, the supreme court case that mr. mix
mentioned had a reasonable compromise that unions are forced to provide everyone the same basic protections. in order to do that, they said you need to pay the fees to cover the cost of that, but you do not have to pay the cost of their political activities. speech, that the free if you have to pay for good services, you receive higher wages and better benefits and protections in disputes, that infringes on your free-speech right poses a series of questions. laws that require you to join , is up tosociation discussion. even the idea that wherever you live, you have to pay for your utilities. that company might make speeches and do political activities that you disagree with, but you have to pay for it.
think of the homeowners association. a lot of people live in a homeowners association in the get a lot of benefits. not everything you do you agree with, but you get the benefits of a nice place to live. if you do not have to pay for that, because you think it is political, it is opening up a can of warms and throwing out a copper mines that has worked well for 40 years. host: is this a radical decision? what is wrong with the idea of having to pay for -- guest: it is not radical, it is fundamental. the first amendment talks about freedom of speech and association. that is a part of the foundation of who we are as a government. the idea that the union has asked for and granted the ability to be an exclusive monopoly is a problem. if they lobbied for these in california, the union said we would be the single voice for
every employee in the state. the california teachers association is the exclusive bargaining point. withoutt speak to them the union being present in the union gets to determine whether the process goes past a surgeon standard. the power -- privileges over american workers. it goes back to 1944 with past labor policies in 1935 in the -- 1937.t and 37 louisville national railroad where the railroad. then i want to represent five black workers who were in the union. they were forced to join the union and the white union officials said they were not represent these people. the black road workers went to the supreme court and said we have given these union officials unbelievable power to regulate
the livelihoods of these workers. because they have been granted this monopoly power, they have this duty of representation. the idea that you cannot just randomly decide not to represent someone who is forced into this collective. that is what has happened in the government sector in california. workers are compelled to be in this association and then compelled to pay for it is the injustice. that is where it starts. it is not radical, it is fundamental. host: if you want to ask our guests questions, 202-748-8000 if you are a member of a labor union. 202-748-8001 for all others. this, been reading about free rider. i do not think people are still getting the benefit. is that the case, is that a way to sum it up? guest: unions provide broad benefits for all of the workers in the organization.
whether or not they are members. all workers will have higher wages and better benefits. the union cannot say you are going to get x and they get y. they provide a public benefit. some people do not have to pay anything to receive that. they have an incentive to be a free rider. if you get something for free, why pay for it. you have fewer workers in unions , and that means unions are in strong decline. most states that have similar policies, they have unions and significant declines. that is the real underlying threat. this is about the future of the middle class. if you look around the world and u.s. states that our history, the same basic principle applies. when you have start unions, you have a shorter class. in the middle class is in deep trouble, it is hard to imagine where you can re-strengthen the
middle class without strengthening the unions. ,nions are already under threat the model that has sustained them for years is under threat. this is a big deal. the model they designed is built on this compulsory power. the ability to accept people and then forcing them to pay for it. their business model is in jeopardy. let's say wethat, won everything, not one person in america will be stopped from joining a union. one worker in the public sector will be stopped from being paid dues and supporting the union if they choose to. the argument that union officials use is an argument against the workers they claim to represent. they are saying if workers are given the ability to opt out and they won't pay, and they say thatthey won't -- the idea
workers can choose whether or not to support a union is a fundamental principle. there are active union movements. for example, where i live, we have a right to work in virginia and a provision against organizing unions. the strongest unions in virginia are the firefighters union because they are voluntarily assemble. no one is forced to pay. they are joined together because they know it is in their interest. they are paying their dues and doing things the union would have them do because they are providing services. that is all we ask. worker is ever stop from joining the union and having speak for them. host: let's hear from a nonunion member from iowa, gary you are on with the guests. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am totally against the unions they take the people who pay the union dues and then take that money to the democratic party, which i'm totally
against. hillary belongs in prison, not trying to run the country. we will hear this idea many times. guest: i cannot hear the caller. the idea you are forced to pay, you never have to join the union. you simply have to pay the cost of the basic things they provide. the negotiation and representation. this is similar to what you do in many other services. you cannot get the service without having to pay for it. the idea that you are being forced to do something you don't want to do, people are looking at it in a narrow way. the other things you are forced to do working for an employer. you have to wear a uniform, facial hair or no facial hair, no tattoos, all sorts of things your free-speech rights are
being restricted. saying narrow way of ght, and particular ri get benefits without having to pay for them, is a strange way of looking at the world. the other thing is, your free-speech rights are never in france. gringed this case is being. -- you have your free-speech rights, you just have to pay for a service you received. guest: i would reject that. righ -- that is the business model that should be accepted. we need to distinguish between the private organization and government. government is the one institution in america that we grant the right to force.
that unions are exactly like government and because they do these things, they should be able to compel people to pay, it is wrong. the idea of protecting everyone in their right to join a union is the right model. granting private organization monopoly power is not the right model. we are back to a first amendment question. fundamentally, if you look at it union officials believe, is one thing to start recognizing you have to go out and buy a service worker, as opposed to relying on the government and forcing them into the collective. host: let's hear from a union member from massachusetts, james. caller: how are you? i think it is a matter of choice. as americans, we should be able to choose. the union is terrible, why would
we want to join it? also, the bigger issue would be religious liberties. religion is on the line because they will be giving money to pro-choice candidates like hillary clinton. i do not think that is fundamentally correct. i think that goes against the principles of what our country is founded on. do you pay dues or fees as a union member? caller: yes. host: how much does it cost? about: our union pays $1200, i am a teacher. the unit is completely horrible. i do not like the fact that a portion of my money is going to democratic candidates. i do not think it is right and i do not think the founders would agree with that at all. guest: he gets to a fundamental point.
he is in massachusetts and compelled to pay fees in order to keep his job. if he does not pay, he will be fired. he is a member of the union and that is accepting with what they do. because it is a monopoly bargaining power, james is required to accept the union and except what they do. that is the difference. there are protections you can get out of from the political component. but the question is, whether or not unions do is political speech. they are lobbying and re-addressing government with their money. some of the money they use can be used for communications regarding candidates and issues that a member would disagree with or a nominal would disagree with, but still forced to pay. those fees can be used for lobbying and other activities that they may disagree with. there is an injustice. the solution is, freeing them up and letting these people choose and let them join voluntarily and pay voluntarily.
i think the caller said he was choosing to be a member. the benefits are worth it. he probably enjoys the good pension at high wages. massachusetts, it is one of the shining examples of a public education system that works very well. it is supported by a union. they have the best outcomes, best test scores, they are seen as the shining stars. i would presume, he finds that beneficial that the unit works to achieve that model. be some typeould of refund available for those who pay for political fees. correct me if i am wrong. guest: that is under current law. you do not have to pay for political activities. you pay for the cost of the negotiations and enforcing the
benefits. you never have to pay for their political activities. there is always inherently a question of these other -- negotiating for higher wages. is that a political activity? maybe, but that is not a first amendment concern. those, you never have to pay and support a particular candidate. that is not the question. the question is whether this negotiation for higher wages is political activity. to me, that would be a radical decision to decide, because it opens up a can of worms. ,aying your utility bill supporting the political activity of that company, according to the logic, potentially. guest: the issue is the rights of the members. in order to exercise your rights .nd avoid paying for politics two cases, 1988, the supreme
court decision with private-sector workers and requiring them to pay for these things. righter to exercise their , rebecca is an example because she was out of the union. she went back into the unit and was elected on the board of the unit and tried to change from inside, but cannot do that. she got frustrated and left. having to exercise those rights under hudson, you have to resign union membership. when you do that, you can no longer vote on the contract that governs your employment. you can never surround the union committee that has to do with your workplace. you cannot vote in union elections. you cannot change from the inside unless you support the political agenda. the court was confronted with this first amendment question, instead of dealing with it directly. they moved around and created this regime and made it worse. we have been to the court numerous times saying this is not work.
the courts agreed as we moved along the continuum from leonard to knox and harris. we finally got back to the first amendment. i want to stress, it is not stop anyone from joining the union and paying the union to speak for them. they can agree to have been a speak for them, they cannot be compelled and fired from choosing not to. host: from clifton, virginia, a nonunion member. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for c-span and washington journal, excellent programs. my question is to mr. mix. in his discussion on exclusive representations, he cited a 1940's incident involving five black members of the union. wasn't the right to work foundation and the right to work movement formed by seven white
supremacists? tofact, didn't they admit that and testimony with regard with the law that brought about the right to work? their objection was that labor at that time was gaining influence in the south and negotiating for equal treatment, not respective of race. not being the case, i am amazed that you would cite a case 70 uprs ago in which you bring racial inequality since that time. labor has been at the forefront of the civil rights movement and i do not think the national right to work foundation has been. guest: thank you for the call and i appreciate that. i am not aware of the testimony. the supreme court case was 1944.
this is how the exclusive monopoly bargaining privilege created a duty fair of representation. they say, we have this responsibility to represent these workers. they are the ones who choose it. that was the point i was trying to make. these were all workers were being discriminated by a union they were forced to join in the court but that it and said they gave them too much power, so they have to create this representational privilege. you said that the segregationist started the right to work, but it did not. --was were rolled employees railroad employees. the unions were not ready to organize it and create a monopoly. until 1951 and they got caught was to pass a bill that allows them to collect fees from all railway workers. they got together and were forced to pay fees to keep their jobs. the committee started in 1955 and has been growing ever since. it was those railway employees
from small business owners that started the right to work. host: a california union member. whyer: i want to know pension boards are overseen by half management and half union representation. why should somebody who does not want to pay agency fees be able to participate? madland. guest: i think he is referring to the participation act which is a law for private-sector workers. when they create pension funds, they are jointly managed by the union of the workers and the management. this was a reasonable compromise that the law trying to work out so that both parties have interest in overseeing how this pension plan is going to be run. not following the other
part of the call. the larger politics involved in right to work. mix right of that the supreme court has wrestled with these issues before. 40 years ago, they laid out a compromise, but the conservatives on the court that all of the arguments that you are bringing up. saidthey still unanimously this was fine. what changed is that 40 years later, conservatives feel more comfortable attacking unions. it state after state. the republican governor will attack unions. i think we are seeing the supreme court feeling emboldened and think that those kinds of arguments and say this is a
reasonable compromise. there are some parts we do not like, but it is reasonable. they now feel emboldened to change 40 years of precedent and revert from going after unions because it is acceptable. that is a big threat and part of a fundamental change in our society. conservatives used to be the biggest supporters of labor unions. u.s. ronald reagan, he would say in order to have a free society, union strong unions. now, we are at a point where we are in danger of having a less free society because our politics become governed by those with money and power. when ordinary workers have little ability to come together in unions, the necessary counterbalance to the money that dominates our political system, we are entering a dangerous territory. host: do societal trends show -- the labor department says 15 million union members and those
are going down in terms of membership. is that something that is on its way out? guest: unions used to represent 1/3 of workers and today there are about 11%. that has been happening for decades. changes in technology and globalization are a part of that. a big part of it has been wereical trends companies and political workers attack and make it harder for workers to join unions. trenda deeply troubling because in order to have a functioning democracy, you need to have counterbalancing powers in society. the election right now, big money dominates. have provided a counterbalance power is to have workers come together so they can be on more reasonable equal splitting with those who have a lot of money.
with: i do not disagree david. --leonservative this is not a question of whether or not unions are going to survive. thatnk it was mary henry set the reason for the union democracy is that they have been too self-interested. they lost sight in their mission. she talks about the demise of organized labor and the loss of members. they were not paying attention to what they should be doing, and that is representing workers. because they have gone to the government for privilege, they are more interested in what happens politically and keeping their people in power so they can maintain this instead of providing services for workers. the fact that they are down to 11% in the private sector, i do
not think that is a result of people going out and attacking labor unions. i think it is a function of their ability to losing sight of what they should be doing in the workplace. gets decided i cap rebecca would like it, it would stop anyone from supporting union. best people are going to choose that option and doesn't that we can the labor union over all? guest: i will not speak to people who make that choice. host: it is a dominant trend. it pulls down to the side that it is a more this argument. there are people in washington that are smarter than everyone else and they know exactly what is good for everybody. they say, just sit back and realize and we will take care of you. i think americans reject that and they think for themselves. i think there are those who want some to speak for them and nothing in the right to work laws will stop them from driving
test joining these organizations. the idea that this is an attack on unions, and an attack on compulsory unions. the president of the national right to work legal foundation. right to the national work legal foundation formerly worked for a congressman, george miller, on economic policy issues. joining us for this discussion. t or from -- let's hear from dee, a nonunion member. good morning. caller: i have a problem with the difference between private business having unions and government employee unions, like sei you -- service employees international union.
because i think they have members in canada, or something. my problem, and it is a big problem, and when i retired, i volunteered at a local school for four years, and i was there 25-30 hours a week. i listened to some of the things that went on with the teacher union during business hours, when they should be taking care of the kids, they are not supposed to. they spent time and talks to each other. they would be talking about an upcoming election, or union. i think the problem with me mainly is public employees get paid by the taxpayers. theirt disagree with political views. i know some union teachers have disagreed, here in california,
which is a very liberal state. they disagreed with what the union wanted to support. my tax dollars, and everybody here in california that pays their taxes that pay the teachers -- this is just one example -- may disagree with the views of who they want to put into office or support. and all taxpayers agree with something that we may be disagree with. i think it is a big mess. i have seen abuses of it. that is my main thing. was president kennedy. i remember exactly when it was announced he had been shot -- i freeway.pasadena employees public unions. i thought unions were originally formed to have better working conditions, not smar
sweatshops. safe environments. host: got you. thank you for that. guest: the caller seems to be concerned that there is a fundamental difference between unions and the private sector and the public sector. differencesnly are between the private sector and public sector. i think the idea is you should have some basic rights. sectorgins of the public onion movement go back to -- some levels, the civil rights. martin luther king was in memphis when he was shot because he wanted public-sector workers to have the right to join the union. they were being mistreated by their white office. he felt this was a fundamental right that all workers have a deserve to have the chance. i think the same concept applies today. you should be able to join
together to improve your working conditions, whether you are in the public sector were private sector. guest: thanks for the call. that was very articulate. the case does not get to the very core question of government unionism per se, it gets to union fees. the idea that you are espousing is not familiar. roosevelt said you cannot do that. the president of the afl-cio .aid you cannot do that it was president kennedy's executive order, i think 1961, that started it for the federal government. it started in the states. , the talked about this balance of power. today, if you look at the statistics of who is in unions, and union density, the worst today is government. 37% of government employees are
unionized. ideal balancing power in the workplace, somehow we have to admit that the worst employer is the government. now, i think people recognize it even more as we talk about government unionization, and the debate continues to move along. is a sillyink that argument about public-sector employers being the worst or the best. you get a union only if your employer is terrible, or something like that. what happens is public-sector workers, ever since they were given the right to unionize, have maintained about one third of workers unionize. that has been true for about 40 years. what is true is that private-sector unionization has over thearply last 30-40 years. it used to be about one third, and is now less than 7%. the public seeing
sector decline now because the tax for 30-40 years were on private sector workers and their ability to join unions. thes far less about individual qualities of the employer, and much more about the overall environment, and whether you have any ability to join the union. our laws make it very, very sector, and private now the public-sector to join the union. guest: joining the union is not a problem. that is a federally protected right. guest: you know what happens if the employer fires you for joining a union? basically, nothing. after years of legal battle, they have to pay your back pay minus anything you earned in the meantime. person,any ordinary will have to get another job. they will have to pay this
miniscule difference, if any thing. that is hardly a disincentive for breaking the law. i think the docket has several cases do you will find it is a full body of work done there that protects them. our laws down there that protect them. guest: there is law, but no penalty. guest: i think there are penalties. host: let's go to wayne, pennsylvania, union member. teamsters. with the you know. teamsters. follow me? as far as i'm concerned, if you are going to join the union, you , everybodyrtain job ought to be happy. drop all this stuff of, why should i pay this? i will say this. i did not have to pay my health care, driving my
tractor-trailer. all the others do. i have benefits them very proud of. i'm retired. i'm proud to be a union member. you'll have a good day. this year is all republican stuff -- this here is all republican stuff. guest: thank you for the call. i appreciate the comment. happynly, wayne was a union member. s thatieves the thing t the union did for him was good. nothing in the 25 right to work states would change his ability to exercise his rights under the law. host: a nonunion member, brian, you are up. caller: i used to be a union member. i worked for a local municipality. abuseason why quit is the
of the union power against us, especially when he told us that when it comes voting time, we had to come in and vote democrat, which i'm not. they told us it was mandatory. i told them to drop dead over it . the unions have done themselves and through corruption, the way they have set themselves up for union power to take advantage of our work, our money , and everything that we do for when they are in office, and they get a free write off of us. i used to support the union. i was a teamster one-time before he tookhis -- before this local job. i was not happy over a lot of the bargaining they came up with because it was slated towards management. when i had to get out of it, i certain time of
the year, write a formal letter, and get out. that is totally wrong too. i totally disagree with that. to often in, fine. if you want to opt out, opt out. not playing these games of writing a letter by a certain time. host: thanks. guest: the situation the color is describing sounds illegal. required not have been to vote a certain way. if you look at how union members vote, lots of them vote in different ways that the union should bese, and that encouraged, and as part of a functioning democracy. i'm sorry the caller had about exchange with a particular union. a reasonhink that is to throw the baby with the bathwater. guest: maybe there are not harsh
enough penalties for that kind of behavior. we know -- we represent tens of thousands of employees a year -- we have a couple of class action lawsuits all across the country. aree anecdotes that we hear things that we hear from workers all across america. this is why we need to continue to fight for their ability to reform their union. the way they can do that is vote with their pocketbook. i think that is the biggest catalyst for change. mary henry indicates that with eiu.sei i think brian story is one that is all too familiar for employees that are required to pay user fees. host: as far as the court is concerned, is it just public unions affected?
are there other types of unions they could see other types of cases of a similar vein? guest: we will see. the court could go narrow. most likely, this applies to all public sector workers. that is probably where would go. thecould imagine going private sector workers. there may not be limiting factors here. the claim that having to pay dues is inherently political could be expanded to all sorts of other things -- homeowners associations, the bar association. most likely the case will be limited, but still huge, millions and millions of workers. host: including federal workers? guest: they are governed under another set of laws. most likely stay and local workers. guest: under current law, federal plays are not required to pay user fees.
they have right to work protections for all federal employees across the country. as david brickley said, the focus is on government employees. the fact is we have a group of teachers that would give the group the ability to fence off the teachers. the harris case was that. we brought it on behalf of home health providers in illinois who were forced to take medicaid subsidies being given to disabled people to provide for their care -- it was being siphoned off and given to the union to quote speak for them. illinois made these home health care providers employees for the purpose of collecting this fee, which was an interesting development. they cannot be compelled to pay those fees are have those fees taken from them.
in, opt out opt case in california. i think if the court rules in the question presented, perhaps all government employees would be free from paying fees. they would enjoy national right to work protections. host: it looks like at least solve thee justices argument, including anthony kennedy. did that surprise you? guest: it surprises me on one level. you have people like justice scalia who are saying things that are different from what they have rolled before. they have rolled in support of the basic 40 years of standard for quite some time. now, he is taking a different position. thisis not surprising is court has become very political. think of citizens united. v. gore. bush bea
this is a continuation of radical conservative justices making political decisions and overturning precedent. it is really troubling. guest: as far as justice scalia is concerned, it is important to distinguish what is the question before the court. you are tying up 1991, the leonarddecision -- decision. a dictated what you had to pay for and what you didn't. i think justice scalia at that point looked at it and said, you are regulated, you could solve this much more easily. bring an cases entirely different level of scrutiny. that is strict scrutiny. there is a constitutional question before the court. there is a different question before the court. it is a constitutional question. they are applying strict scrutiny to the case.
a union member and pennsylvania. this is chris. caller: "washington journal" my favorite show on television. thank you for that. i am a memberr -- of a private union. when we hear right to work state , we think of that as the right .o work for less this is obviously another attack on unions, particularly public sector unions, but it will trickle down to private sector unions. dues.s, i pay yearly they are nominal. i pay a small percentage out of my wages. as far as i know, none of that given to political activity. my unit does have a political might unionittee --
does have a political action committee, and i can donate to that, but that's it. this notion of the money is being taken to me and used for political purposes, you know what, if they are using it to get a better wages and benefits, that is a good thing. that is why i am a member of the union. guest: absolutely. you are exercising your right. you believe the union is doing good things. funds say that general can be used for lobbying and politics. it cannot be used for direct contributions to candidates. in their own reports that the file, they talk about what their expenditures are. the union's own admission, they spent about $1.7 billion on politics and bobbing -- lobbying.
guest: the caller makes his larger point about right to work -- really, it leads to the right to work for less. the evidence is that in states with the right to work, which is basically what this supreme court would do, make it so you don't have to pay to get benefits in the union, we see that unions are very weak in all cases. mississippi, south carolina -- unions represent a very small percentage of people. what you see is wages in those states are significantly lower. about $1500 whether you are a union member or not. it is a troubling trend. you end up with workers earning less. .t is a problem this larger attack on workers and their power. right now, corporate profits are
at record levels. wages have been stagnant for quite some time. just one example. the median worker, meaning half the more, half make less, -- they have had to in a has decades of stagnation. workers are not doing well. unions are about the only way that we know that has a proven record of improving wages. we are in trouble without them. guest: there is a lot of doubt about the economic studies that david is dedicating his argument on. workers in right to work states as we have more disposable income than in forced union states. you know this, david. you cannot compare a plumber's wages in manhattan with a plumber's wage somewhere else. you can't.
it is a side issue when it comes to the breeders case when we as aabout compelled fees condition of employment. i think that is the fundamental injustice. i would be glad to debate the so-called positions of right to work versus non-right to work states. states like texas and wisconsin, michigan, indiana. i don't think the argument holds any water at all. guest: there is a whole body of academic research, not industry funded studies, that show what i show. academic research is on a google that unions raise wages and reduce inequality. guest: i would say that, they raise wages. back to my example of the plumber, raising wages is one thing, but how much money they
have left over at the end of the day is another thing. missouri, nonunion member, greg. go ahead. caller: good morning. i don't have any problem with private-sector unions. i do with public sector unions. crime,ld be considered a and all public sector union .hould be disbanded seven out of the 10 richest counties are in washington, d.c., i think they are getting screwed. guest: as i explained at the beginning, i think there are some differences between public sector and private sector, but the basic idea that workers have fundamental rights when they work for a public sector
employer holds true. the origins are really here. are mistreated, and feel the need to join a union, and change their working conditions. i think that is a fundamental right, no matter who your employer is. the idea of people joining unions, public-sector unions, whatever they would be, is something we ought to protect . the idea that they joined voluntarily, and as this organization to speak for them is perfectly fine. it is when you give them the , wherey bargaining power you have the problem. host: california, a union member, jane. caller: i am a public service union member.
i have found that for the last uniteds, the citizens right to work are nibbling at the foundation of our civilization. you think it is cute to say public union should not have employeespublic should not have unions. when you have been abused in that system, the only protection .ou have is the union thisre destroying civilization with your greed and in thision of employees country. you will see, in the end that you have destroyed this country. guest: thanks for calling in this morning. i would say, from a standpoint of the friedrichs case, the original premise of the show diane nods in the knox
employee in california. you have the right for this organization to represent you and protect you. the idea compelling it is what is at injustice here. i guess -- i guess we could agree that if we force everyone into organized labor, collective bargaining agreements, somehow the balance of the world would write itself. i disagree with that. i think workers are free to make a choice of who they want to associate with. that is the fundamental question before the court. this idea that i have to somehow pay you to speak for me on things that i disagree with. that is the issue. guest: that is not the issue. the issue is whether you have to be paid for services you receive. the caller is right on the larger issue. you have this -- the debate you
want to have is on a very narrow technical issue about well, i don't want to have to pay for these things that i might not 100% agree with, but the larger problem, and really what conservatives should support is we have a reasonable compromise that has worked reasonably well for 40 years. by attacking that, you are attacking the underpinnings of how workers have received higher wages and better protections. we are entering dangerous territory because the economy is not working for virtually anyone except for those at the very top . we have those with lots of money and lots of power taking over control of democracy. the only way that workers fight back is by joining together. we are attacking their ability to do that here. take one more call be will your this is tennessee, tom, a nonunion member.
caller: thank you for what you will do. farmer.eef i've always supported candidates that support these and agriculture. i don't understand the guy from pennsylvania who didn't want to slow for someone who fight it for him. i always vote for my friends. it is not a problem, he should not make it a problem for people who want to eat good. host: looking ahead to one of the -- guest: i'm not a lawyer, by the way. i want to put that out publicly. the: what happens in short-term term and the long term as far as the specifics of the case is concerned? the union security
agreements are called into question everywhere. 21 states now have the compulsive tory fees -- compulsive tory fees. those are obviously in question. that is the fun mental result of the friedrich case, as it relates to the impact of the case before the court. guest: i think the court is forly to make it harder people to join together in unions here. what they have been doing in the private sector has helped unionization declined to less than 7%. the public' sector has been stable. if the court rules the way we think it will, we will see public-sector unionization decline. the larger question is that is a threat to our economy. if we don't have unions, what thriving democracy
work. to both of you gentlemen, thank you for the discussion. guest: thank you very much. host: in the last half-hour, the chance to respond to open phones. here are the numbers. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 from republicans. .ndependents, (202) 745-8002 you can make those calls right now to participate in open phones. i want to tell you about our "newsmakers" program. ,ur guest, leon rodriguez joining us for a discussion about immigration related issues. during the course of interview, he talks about u.s. veterans, and how the u.s. that's neat applicants, especially in might of december did you don't shootings -- in light of the san bernardino shootings last month. [video clip] thing we talk about
avoiding is focusing on any one particular category to focus on another. we need to pay attention everywhere. the questions raised by that there ared sometimes questions the dona caeli applied to the case, but questions we need to answer. one of the big ones is how we use social media for screening. you have heard discussions. it turns out the discussions were private. not ones that we would have been able to see in that case. they still point to the importance of efforts that have been ongoing for a while now. we have been in the process of building our social media vetting capacity. we have been focusing on refugees, and more specifically, refugees from syria. we are ramping up basically towards using social media entire areass the of activity for us, but clearly, there are benefits to using that regardless of if it is a fiancee
visa, summer here on a work visa, a family visa. there are ways we should be thinking about using those tools. that is one of the most important issues brought to the floor. pointyou envision at some every visa process will have to go through some sort of social media vetting? >> that is an issue we are sorting through right now. we have 8 million cases reviewed every year. the feasibility of reviewing social media postings for each and every case may or may not make sense. clearly, there are areas where we would want to be focusing. orher particular countries criteria. >> as of now, you have syrian refugees.
what percentage of applicants are having a social media presence review? specificot know the number, but we are moving through more and more -- really, the majority will have a social media check out on their cases. syrians and iraqis. >> "washington journal" continues. host: again, the numbers for open phones. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 745-8002. this is the associated press, thatting out of iran iran's state tv has announced that for prisoners have been released. they have not released their names. the bbc is reporting this morning that one of the names on post"st is a "washington reporter. this is the associate press reporting that for prisoners
have been released, in light of sanctions relief going into effect today with iran meeting qualifications for its nuclear program. final open phones for the half-hour of this program today. we will start with joe, georgia, republican line. caller: i have been calling c-span for 30 years. a great network. you do a fantastic job. a day to-10 hours elect ted cruz. i wear his badge everywhere. with the 19 chili dollar debt -- , it isrillion debt extremely important that we elect a champion like ted cruz. since the republicans voted on this terrible budget bill -- this unbelievable budget bill, which i think was a terrible vote by the republicans, it is essential that be elect ted cruz president. we need a taxpayer champion in there. i would vote for ted cruz over
anyone in the history. i am a ronald reagan-margaret republican.ed cruz i want to tell you national audience how fired up i am about ted cruz. host: you are not affected all by claims over his birthright? caller: not at all. i'm totally convinced that he is eligible to run for president. i cannot wait to get to the polls and focus for the person that will be the greatest president in history, ted cruz. host: we will hear from pat, west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i pointed my 30 days, and i'm glad there was a subject i was interested in that came up. i want to address this labor issue. i'm retired from the u.s. postal service. 15 years, i was a union steward.
there is an open shop at the postal service. you don't have to belong to the union. i agree with that in the public sector. if you don't want to belong to the union, i agree with that. however, i was required to represent people who did not belong to the union. i quit that. for people to volunteer and fight for their country, while others sit back and don't do that. reason i say that is this. they are looking for representations that they do not want to pay for. i feeling that is somehow cowardice. i would like to say this. that man got on there and talk about all the ways that freedoms were being restricted, but he wanted to be able to sit in on the panels that decided things between union and management, but not belong to it.
he alluded to that once. there were several things like that that he alluded to. he conveniently forgot his legal history when it came to the man's reference about it being a situation where there was discrimination early on with some of the first labor decisions. however, he had his facts very straight concerning other aspects. to say toi would like end, one thing is certain. there is no stay in our union that has a law that says you cannot go down the street if you don't like the fact that there is a union at the company you are trying to get a job at. there is no law in any state that prevents you from going down the road, and getting you a job at a place where they do not have a union, and the agree with your philosophy. that is really the freedom
there. these other people want to take away your freedom. in westat is pat virginia. both of the last callers bringing up a point. we appreciate our callers of paying the 30 day rule. if you called in the last 30 days, hold off until then, give others a chance to call in. reportingork times" "iran releases washington post ian."ter jason reza there is more coming out in light of the story. this is open phones. we will go next to randy, michigan, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: good. talk there. mix
i'm from michigan. as a lot of people will know, we are a right to work state now. he willingly said that they wanted the right to work in michigan. that is a total lie. we all know why right to work was and limited in michigan. it was insulated by snyder, our lame duckin a session. the police kept the members out of the house in lansing, and we all do what happened. that is the way it was implemented. if you called that willingly want to get in michigan, that is not the case. they have a nationwide agenda. it will have a republican house and senate and governor in every state. that is what they are doing. that is their agenda. they have right to work nationally. will i don'tow -- when
understand is isn't it strange that the police and firefighters unions are exempt from right to work. why are they exempt if it is supposed to be so good for everybody? host: we told you the story of the release of the prisoners. also, iranian international sanctions on iran will be lifted today went the international agency confirms that they have complied with an agreement to scale back their nuclear program. host: from new york, this is
charlie on the republican line. caller: good morning. to say that obama is a great president takes a new kind of stupid never before seen in this country. i have enjoyed watching him destroy the democratic party. let me run some numbers by you. since obama has become president, democrats have lost 900 seats. the democrats have lost 900 seats in state houses across america. in the69 seats house, 13 seats in the senate, and 12 governorships. the democrats have lost so much support that the dnc needs $20 million to pay for their convention this year. is ay that president obama great president is a new kind of stupid. host: this charlie in wisconsin on the democrats line.
caller: i'm from minnesota. host: go ahead. caller: i'm a union member. a member of the international brotherhood of carpenters. people retired now are receiving benefits by people who are working. the number of people who are union members falling because of jobs that are required to be union are no longer required to be union. the support of the government, i'm afraid that all the people retired will be losing their benefits. they are already in a critical status. people are conserving money does to keep the fund alive. i think if we lose our bargaining power with the government, all those people that are counting on the retirement are not going to be will to get them.
host: this is charlie from new york. caller: we finally got it. i'm charlie from new york. foren, it is very hard progressives to speak for some reason. i've been trying to get through for many weeks. anyway, i'm for unions, like everybody else, 99% of the american population. randy, a few colors back, made a very good point. the firefighters and the police union are not affected by this right to work law. i wonder why, if it is so good for everybody. the right to work is really a right to steal. these people get benefits from the union, and they're not paying. right to work, it is right to steal. i wish you would have rough later on the show. from "the new york times" this "u.s. pledges to a race
d.c., republican line. you are next. caller: good morning. i'm calling because i was a former union member with united airlines. i saw how they outsourced positions. they outsourced reservation agency jobs to india between 19 96 and 2006. as belonging to the union did not seem helpful because they offer us to relocate, or not have a job. i have a bad taste in my mouth with unions. also, voter intimidation. no one should be told how to vote. i hope the supreme court rules in favor of people not being made to pay union dues. host: from ron in california, you are next on the open phones. about ted cruz being eligible for being president --
he says he was born in canada. we know he was born in canada, but meantime, his mother is an american citizen, and so on. in the meantime, what he is saying is we should have winston he could have run for president because his mother was american. some were all bunk along the lie, we need to figure this out. lawsuit fromte lette texas being filed on that topic in the last 24 hours. by the way, if you watch c-span2 and c-span 3 on a regular basis, you know that on the weekend it turns onto booktv on c-span 2 and american history tv on c-span 3. both of those networks will air the historical and literary life of hartford, connecticut. this weekend, you can sign-up
many things, including today at noon on booktv, you can find all ,he programming they have including a look at the famous family of entertainers who think ang about thes movements of the time. [video clip] ♪ >> there is a 44 song, "get off the track" was of the first anti-slavery party. one of the most famous sons of the hutchinson family. it becomes a bit of an anthem for the 1840's anything 50's. and 1850's.
♪ >> the book is on the hutchinson family singers, this group of singers, bornf in new hampshire in 181010 1820's. they are a family group, a group of three brothers and one sister. they are antislavery singers, and one of the most popular acts of the 1840's and 1850's. host: if you want to find out about hartford, connecticut, you c-span 2 and c-span 3. back to open phones. richard is in nashville, tennessee on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. about 10 years ago, i lost a job
and had to pull in, and get a job. it was a unionized company. about two years later, they made me a steward. i've seen good and bad on both sides. i think companies manipulate the contracts, change things around, do things, threaten the union. i have seen the union do the same thing. there are a lot of things where the union members are their own worst enemies. they play both sides. the manager of the union will go against the own thing, vote a different way. i'm not saying we need to be union or nonunion. i've seen good and bad on both sides. i'm here to tell you that with the immigration problem, the way gois, with companies try to to part-time work, lower wages, no benefits -- if you think the municipalities have a financial
problem, when you go to make minimum wage part-time, the company i work for gives you 18 hours minimum wage. there is no one in america younger old that can live on that. until the unions realize that and get a backbone, they will lose, lose, lose. international union is the worst thing that can happen to the unions and this country. the unions and this country borrow money from the international. what goes on in europe is not the same as what goes on in america. liz, florida, republican line. i called today because i am complicated -- contemplating running for president. i wasn't sure what line to call because basically everyone has usn is all a part -- torn
all a part. can i digress to the right to work, or not? host: let me know what you want to run for president. caller: the country is in shambles. i have the education. host: what would your platform be built on? mainly on peace. i would need an advisor as far as foreign policy goes. host: what about right to work you want to add to the conversation? the right to work equals the right to fire. there was a friend of mine -- i guess a lesbian, and what happened was she had a picture desk, and her mate on her and others about her had pictures of similar nature
around the office. she just thought it would be nice. i think she was right in doing it, but she was fired for doing it. in fortat is liz lauderdale, florida. the papers are reporting this morning that walmart plans to close 269 stores, many of them smaller shops, including its small format express stores. the move represents a shift in tactics. affectre closures are to 16,000 jobs internationally -- 10,000 of those positions will be in the united states. pennsylvania, barbara is up next. i am a union member. always let the term right to
work -- i think we have the right to work. there are politics involved, but the union negotiates a contract. we still have fair share instance of a new. -- in pennsylvania. those workers who do not pay for the representation, does it get to the point where every person negotiates their own contract? that can really open up another can of worms. i know teachers that are forced to tutor after school, coaching team that they don't want to, comment on saturday. the working conditions are completely different than what we have in pennsylvania. maybe i'm not understanding why it is not fair that people who benefit from the contract should of participate in some kind
-- pay for that as well. i wonder what will happen if they do negotiate their own contracts. of you interested in the campaign of donald trump, he is in new hampshire today and will hold a rally at 11:30. you can look out for it on c-span and c-span.org. ted cruz will also be campaigning in new hampshire. that will be tomorrow. the rally is set for 5:00 in the afternoon tomorrow. again, watch on c-span and c-span.org and listen on c-span radio. from ohio, nancy. of god's faithful and loyal angels, especially guardian, healing, soldier, and arch angels need our prayers. our prayers show our gratitude
and makes god's holy angels stronger in performing their duties. prayers from human beings are very powerful source for angels. i'm asking the c-span viewers to god's angels.r thank you and god bless. and minneapolis, minnesota, independent line. caller: how are you doing? i have a couple of things i just want to say. i will make it really brief. is the president and guantanamo. i just think they are making him that he cannot move forward and close guantanamo. you know what i think you should do before he leaves office? i think he's a person i go to guantanamo and personally but those people out -- let those people out.
the second thing is i would really like to see c-span stop talking so much about terrorism. it seems like you guys are promoting war. i wish that was not so. the other thing. i enjoy when you covered the interview -- this was like last when you were talking about the other sides of martin luther king. last month, there was another conference you held with republicans and community building. it was like a roundtable discussion with african-american ministers and nonprofits talking about how they are helping people out of poverty. .t was a republican conference paul ryan was there.
i enjoyed it so much, that things that people on the panel said. i really appreciate c-span covering that. the final thing. have you ever thought about every once in a while, maybe once a month, having a celebrity on their? maybe reba mcentire or serena williams? just accomplished celebrities who can talk about -- just, you get questions. host: thank you very much. you mentioned a lot of things including the celebrity aspect. if you go to c-span.org and have the time and are interested in seeing any of the events that you mentioned, you can find it on our video library. celebrities, we have had them over the years as well. cher and others have come to speak about issues they are
passionate about. "the washington post" talks about a kiss based here in virginia, dealing with robert mcdonald. the supreme court now picking up the case involving him. the case will decide if the former virginia governor will be of corruption for his efforts on behalf of a businessman who bestowed money and gifts on him and his family. mcdonald's attorney told the court that it's routine political courtesy to businessman could be conceived as felony, making all politicians vulnerable and armed the federal prosecutors with a frightening degree of control over the political process. line.ontana, democrats caller: i just wanted to comment about the union contracts. i'm not a lawyer, but to my distending, it is simply a
contract between the employer and employees. in any other contract, those two parties are exclusive to the contract. if you are under a right to work state, it allows other people to come into the contract. if that is so fair, why don't you do it with all contracts, not just the working people? jim, line for, independents. go ahead. caller: thank you. two points first. crur english common-law, z is a citizen of the united states because he was born to an american citizen. also, on right to work -- i wrote a letter which "usa today" published saying that right to work violates majority rule because my understanding is that
the only way a union can be formed is that a majority of the workers for over the union. i live in michigan, i'm against the governor. majority rule controls who is voted in and who is voted out. i still have to pay my taxes, even though i don't. union, a member of the who wants to help out -- host: got you. thank you very much for the call. jim mentioned ted cruz and what is going on concerning his citizenship. that will be part of a segment you can see tomorrow with randy
barnett, a constitutional law professor. he will discuss the conflicting views concerning whether ted cruz is a natural born citizen. later, we will be joined by charlie cook. we will talk about the iowa caucus and the new venture primary, as well as a wrap up of the gop presidential debate. from 930 to 10:00 -- 9:30 to d on theuncan woo recapture of el chapo. , thell look at that papers, we will take your phone calls as well. "washington journal" comes your way tomorrow at 7:00. see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> next, secretary of state john kerry outlines the 2016 parties for the state department. then, house ways in committee , talksand kevin brady about taxes, the economy, and the 2016 presidents on race -- presidential race. trumpat 11:30, donald in new hampshire. on wednesday, secretary of state john kerry outlined administration foreign-policy objectives for the president's final year in office. this is about 45 minutes.