tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 21, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
talked about the puerto rico debt legislation introduced in the house this week. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ ♪ good morning. endorsement from -- the presumptive republican presidential nominee yesterday spoke at the nra convention in louisville where he declared his love for the second amendment come about to end gun free zones and criticized hillary clinton about her stance on guns. clinton will appear with the martin in anyvon effort to promote in control.
what is more important to you in the 2016 campaign? gun rights or gun control? gun owners can call 202-748-8000 . those who do not own guns can call 202-748-8001. you can also reach us on social media, on twitter and on facebook. good morning. take a look at what donald trump had to say yesterday in louisville about his gun stance and hillary clinton. [video clip] >> i've been a member for a long time and my boys are members and they are much better shooters than i am. to get the endorsement, believe me, is a fantastic honor. [applause] wayne andsaid to
chris come i will not let you down. remember that. i will not let you down. [applause] a few remarks and i will read then because we go into a little detail. i will tell you that hillary clinton -- i call her crooked hillary. read any newspaper you want. hillary clinton wants to abolish the second amendment. we are not talking about changing it, she wants to abolish the second amendment. we will not let that happen, i will tell you that right now. we will preserve it and cherish it and take care of it. host: hillary clinton responded on twitter yesterday. stating that america simply 00 gun accept 33,0
deaths a year as normal. starting with calls from you on this issue. special lines, those who own guns can call 202-748-8000. those who do not own guns can call 202-748-8001. about donaldmore trump's appearance in louisville yesterday at the nra convention. times."'s "new york if donald trump's comments seem reminiscent of an era when crime , they alsofar higher appeared somewhat at odds with consensusbipartisan on the need to reduce incarceration rates and prison populations.
a little more about the gun control stance of donald trump from the new york times as we talk about gun control today in today's "washington journal." donna is calling in from las vegas. you do not own guns. is gun control and issue for you? caller: i do not own guns come i never have, but i was in the military. . support gun ownership , don't believe gun ownership that guns are the problem. it's the people that own them, their mindsets. the society we live in is getting worse and worse because of things on tv and in our education system, what our college students are being
taught now with revisionist history. that is why patriotism is such a horrid word. gunsu are going to ban because they kill people, you might as well ban vehicles too. we just had a person that ran over 30 people with her vehicle. as a weapon. there's a lot more homicides with vehicles then there are guns. than there are guns. think it would help the crime situation in las vegas if more people owned guns there? caller: definitely. we have people afraid to leave their homes because of people actually breaking into their homes while they are home.
we need to turn up our televisions and make a lot of noise if we are home in case there is somebody outside wanting to break into our homes. i would feel safer if i knew how to operate a gun. i did in the military, but that was 30 years ago. host: who are you supporting for president? is gun control one of the reasons why? caller: i am supporting trump. that is one of the reasons, yes. john inr next caller is illinois. you own a gun. is can control a big issue for control a big issue for you? caller: not really. the whole issue is the gigantic divergent of our time -- diversion of our time. you're not going to change
anything with legislation, the nra will never let that. i don't go to bed at night innking, g, when i wake up the morning, someone is going to take my guns away. sinceeen owning guns 1958. i cannot remember ace in the time in my life that i was concerned about this issue. political of a division point. this up, he probably never cared before he ran for president. host: who are you supporting for president? caller: would not be trump. the fact that he has come in the past come expressed ,upport for assault rifle bans things like that, does that change your view of him or the overall presidential race at all? caller: he is running to get
elected. he's found out he can say practically anything -- his strategy is exactly that. i don't believe he feels there's any limits because every time he says something that would have tanked anybody else's campaign, he went up in the polls. i do believe he has an excellent chance to be president. how will he act when he is president? i have no idea. that's where i hope the senate and house come to their senses and start governing this country. john calling in from illinois as we talk about gun rights and gun control. we can take a look at how donald trump is doing in the polls compared to hillary clinton. this piece from politico shows his poll numbers are currently surging in the race.
he was trailing by about seven points, but now, he has erased most of that gap. clinton's invention is down to roughly two points -- advantage is down to roughly two points. this gun debate is unwinding at a time when the race in the presidential campaign appears to be very close. up next, we have larry calling in from tennessee. you do not own a gun. is gun control an issue for you in this campaign? caller: i have nothing against guns. setting, wea rural had guns. when we were in an urban area with children in the home, we had no need for that.
this god and guns and glory is just a t-shirt. no glory in guns and god did not carry one, so rednecks will have to come up with their own new messiah messiah.-- new people can vote for trumpet they want to, but it will be one of the biggest mistakes they ever made. -- trump if they want to. host: his main message yesterday was that hillary clinton would actually try to eliminate the second amendment altogether. are you concerned about that? caller: no, ma'am. mr. trump has a legacy of saying just about anything. there's no legitimacy to anything he says. nobody is going to get rid of guns. it is a part of the constitution, the second amendment. we can fix the unemployment problem by letting people pick
up munitions these next few years. i can remember a time when you had razor wire on prisons, now you have to have it on schools, police stations, supermarkets. are you really safer with all these guns? host: larry calling in from tennessee. we have a lot of calls today. a call frome michigan. you own a gun. is that an important issue for you? caller: very much so. host: who are you supporting? caller: the lesser of two evils, i guess. i'm a trump supporter. host: is guns one of the reasons you are supporting him? caller: it is one of the reasons. i grew up with guns.
you can make all the laws you want. the only people that are going to break them are the people who are the criminals to begin with. take chicago is a perfect example. they outlawed guns and they have the highest crime rate in the nation right now. just because you cannot have begun -- have a gun doesn't mean a criminal isn't going to get one. host: we talked about the fact that donald trump's stance on guns has changed over the years. in the past, he supported an assault weapons ban, even praised president obama for his comments after the newtown connecticut school shooting. does that give you some concern that perhaps we are not sure about what donald trump's stance on guns is? through theou go history of any political candidate we have, they have contradicted themselves over the years.
they are going to say what they think the people want to hear. the thing with trump is he has no big business behind him. he is big business. he has nobody telling him what to say at this point. he is a politician. his story is going to change again in the future. host: thank you. a little more from today's "new york times" piece about donald trump's endorsement from the nra yesterday.
that is the state of the debate right now in this election campaign. , rock calling in from rockdale, texas. you own a gun. is gun control an important issue for you? caller: yes, it is very important. no matter what laws are passed and what rules and regulations, guns are going to be there. i know there's a lot of innocent deaths per year in the united states and around the world, but there's lots of deaths. with baseball's with baseball bats and pools and knives. i've been raised with guns. i know they are safety. , not formade to kill
fun. i know how to clean guns, how to teach people how to use guns. ors have to be part of life something bad is going to happen. trump, i am not behind everything he stands for, but you cannot take guns away from us. i've lived 13 miles from where i was born my whole life and my whole family is here. there's nobody that would step around us or break into our house because they know they are going to stay here. if that is gone, it is just a small example, we are done. we are done everywhere. host: this point about responsible gun ownership, there is a column in today's "new york deadeyealled "meet
donald." she raises the question of whether all goun owners are responsible. she writes -- if people don't know how to use their guns, can that create a bigger problem? man oft needs to be the the house, peoples that he's an step that is need to be responsible for that. ,hey need to teach their kids raise them to teach their kids and grandkids and so forth. guns are made to kill, not made
for fun, not made to show off. we have jenny calling in from lancaster, ohio. you don't own a gun. his gun rights important to you -- is gun rights important to you? gun control is more important. i don't own a gun because i'm scared. host: may i ask who you are supporting? caller: donald trump. let me say this about donald trump. principles before personalities. he seems to be taking a very pro-gun stance yesterday when he accepted the nra's endorsement. all?at swaying you at
care if they't have guns. i just don't own a gun because i'm scared of them. host: that is jenny calling in from ohio. up next, we have jim calling in from akron, ohio. is gun control more important than gun rights this election? caller: they are both important to me. gunse friends that have for home protection and for deer hunting. that should be protected. but i don't think anybody should be able to go out and buy military weapons or rpg's or anything like that. that is for the military. i don't think homeowners should have anything like that. host: who are you supporting in the election?
are talking about trump -- we have a republican legislature in ohio, you cannot arry a gun into the statehouse. but they want to put guns in the libraries where our children go. they are hypocrites. carry guns into governor kasich/s office -- governor kasich's office. i will not vote for trump. he is a hypocrite. jim calling from ohio. let's take a look at an ad from hillary clinton on this issue. [video clip] >> as a mother who lost her up andi'm going to stand challenge
the system and continue to tell my story. ayvon at this tr
time, but there are other trayvon's i can help. our young men and women are being murdered and nobody is being held accountable. --we cannot stand for this >> gun violence prevention. >> police reform. >> we have to be accountable for making sure our community is this as safe as any other person in this country. -- and just as safe as any other person in this country. >> the stakes are too high, the costs are too dear. i am not and will not be afraid to keep fighting for commonsense reform. and along with you, achieve those on behalf of all who have been lost. >> she has been fighting for a long time. someone here is really willing to listen and create
change. >> she's a person who is concerned about the needs of all people. host: hillary clinton will be speaking today in florida at the trayvon martin foundation in fort lauderdale, florida. we are talking to you, asking you if gun rights or gun control is more important. up next is ruth calling in from hilliard, florida. you do not own a gun. which side is more important to you? caller: neither side is more important to me. this is a non-issue. i'm 62 years old. democratver heard a under the words -- utter the words "i want to take your guns
away." look for a democrat making this statement in your c-span archives. this is all about the presidential election. the republicans do this every presidential election. it is ridiculous. host: up next, mary calling in from south carolina. which issue is more important to you? caller: gun rights are more important to me. i do not own a gun, i have never shot a gun. but, if i want to be able to and family against terrorists come i want to be
able to acquire again. tomorrow, if iun wished. watch therybody would
nra program about all these terrorists that want to bomb us. are not the people in washington, d.c. or new york or l.a. we are the backbone of this country and we own guns and we will protect our country and our families. int: up next, clyde calling from new jersey. you do not own a gun. is gun control or gun rights more important to you? caller: i do not believe in gun control. i remember a time in history when england took all the guns away. rooseveltld war ii, supplied them with guns and ships and stuff. don't own a gun, i don't even want a gun. i know my temper. thank you.
host: are you still there? caller: yes. host: are you concerned at all that people may buy guns and not have the temperament or skill to know how to use them safely? laws don't control work. if you are a criminal, you can go on any street corner in philadelphia or camden and buy a gun. in the black market. it doesn't make sense. host: who are you supporting in the presidential race? caller: i am a tossup on that one. i will make a decision when it is time to vote for the person. clyde calling in from new jersey -- host: clyde calling in from new jersey. a little more from "the washington post," talking about
assault weapon bans as recently as after the newtown, connecticut school shooting. al is calling in from kansas. you do not own a gun. is gun rights or gun control more important to? that's more important to you? caller: i believe in the second amendment. but in the united states, we require insurance to protect ofple from the loss or harm their property -- i don't see peopleshouldn't require to purchase insurance to protect the public from any hazards or harm caused by operating a handgun. host: is there any circumstances you could see yourself pursuing a gun? caller: no.
i have a theory that it is hard to get shot with a gun you don't own. host: al calling in from kansas. , timberlake, north carolina. irvin.e a gun owner, caller: you are going down the road, five miles over this be limit, you get a $500 ticket. -- over the speed limit, you get a $500 ticket. the welfare state has created all these poverty zones where people kill each other like chicago. then, we are $20 trillion in debt. everything falls apart, there's gangs running around breaking into your house trying to get your food. what are you going to defend yourself with? we have this huge government
that is intruding in every part of our lives. what are we going to defend ourselves with? in north carolina, we have a police state. you can drive 10 miles and 220 cops. 20 cops.e i was in arizona and 44 days, i count the 11 cops -- for four days, i counted 11 cops. concerned by the fact that it seems donald trump's stance on the issue has fluctuated over time? caller: that doesn't matter because the guy has a right to change his mind. he may be the lesser of two evils, but hillary clinton is so the democrats are so evil, they are the ones that got us into the situation where you have to have a gun.
there's people killing each other all over the place. we are bringing in illegal andns that are killing us giving heroine to our kids. it's insane. host: up next, we have bruce calling in from new jersey. you own a gun. his gun rights or gun control in major issue for you in this campaign? caller: i believe it is gun control. i want to see more gun control. i own 10 guns. i want to see control on ammunition. seent to cmo serialized -- and most serialized. own ay a box of ammo, you box of ammo. concerned if there
is more gun regulation that it being ablet you from to acquire or keep your guns? caller: not at all. in new jersey, i have to be a registered permit owner to get again. a gun. i don't know where these illegal guns are coming from, but there's 300 million of them already and i don't want to see ammunition available on the internet for anyone to pick up and by -- and buy. other places, there's no gun control at all. host: that is bruce calling in from new jersey. up next, we have bob calling in from chesapeake, virginia. you own a gun. is that an important factor for you? caller: yes, i own guns.
the second amendment is not to be a bridge. crimes in this area and chicago are blacks at the age of 30. if they want to pass a law, the first law they need to pass is to take the guns away from the black youth up to 30 and once they get gun laws passed, they can go and pass the rest of the laws. host: bob calling in from virginia. up next, joe calling in from charleston, south carolina. rights antrol or gun more important factor for you? caller: they are equally important. there is a proper balance at this point.
there is an overreaction to responsible gun ownership. i own a concealed weapons permit. sure a responsible gun owner would have been welcomed in san bernardino or sandy hook. , i cannot takena a gun certain places. schools, hospitals, courts, law enforcement agencies, federal property, state parks. here's the problem. there are responsible drivers and irresponsible drivers. there are responsible drinkers and irresponsible drinkers. just the point you were making about responsibility and where guns can be taken -- hillary clinton recently sent out a tweet that stated that donald trump would force all
schools to allow guns in classrooms on his first day of office. the outcomeied that of this election could change where guns are allowed to be carried? the go and is a responsible concealed weapon permit holder. -- gun owner. law andley amended the actually allowed concealed weapon permit holders to carry alcoholapons into serving establishments. the outcry was unbelievable. it was going to be like the old west. blood would be flowing in the streets, there would be shootouts. that was 2014 in february. do you know how many acts of violence attributed to guns there have been since she signed that into law in alcohol serving establishments? zero.
not one. that's one of the misconceptions. responsible gun owners are necessary. at the local middle school would welcome me when i pick up my child. carry one because you have that sign on the door. you have to strike a balance. host: we have a lot of calls on this issue. up next, debbie calling in from arizona. his gun rights more important to you than gun control in this election? no come a gun control is more important to me than gun rights. host: you say that even though you own a gun. you are not concerned -- caller: i do own a gun, yes.
i am a 62-year-old woman. , what if i pull one out is going to happen. and ieen robbed before have not had my gun. -- no that gun control one wants to see children cut in half with these bad ask guns that are out there -- bad ass guns that are out there. where are these people that have these guns? they are waiting out in the forest for the helicopters from the government to come and chase them. the you see anybody out there with a gun putting down these people that have guns, except for police or someone who is lucky enough to be able to stop them? host: let me ask you this
question. today, hillary clinton is meeting with parents whose children have been lost to gun violence. is there concern about the availability of guns and frequency with which they are used to kill? hostcaller: absolutely. i've been born and raised in california, i live in arizona now. the east coast, i don't know about the gun laws, but i know a lot of states that don't have gun laws and a lot of them do have laws and the guns are being transported over. i could not tell you the states or anything. host: debbie calling in from arizona. on the nra website, they have a map which shows right to carry laws as they are by state.
, the stateue states shall issue gun control laws. discretionaryue, or no permit required. states that allow individuals to carry concealed firearms without a permit. up next, we have joseph calling in from millersville, maryland. you own a gun. is this an important issue to you? caller: it is an important issue. i think gun control is more important because right now, we cannot have guns. one of the biggest problems is private sales transactions. i've been to gun shows before to boothple go booth
asking if you require a background check and if they say yes, they will go to the next booth. a lot of people are acquiring guns this way. it would not be a bad idea to have a registry of firearms. i don't think that infringes on the second amendment at all. host: who are you supporting in the presidential race? have you made up your mind? have loved it if bernie sanders got the nomination, but i don't think he will get there, so i will vote democrat. had --en. sanders: as senator sanders has had a more --axed stance on gun rights is that an issue for you in the primary?
as focused ont the gun control issue between the two of them. bernie sanders has a better mix of ideas for me. so, the gun control has not been a key issue. host: joseph calling in from maryland. up next, tom is calling in from rio rancho, new mexico. you own a gun. which is more important to you, gun rights or gun control? caller: it has to be a balance. on, based on the types of guns available now, there has to be a balance. the federal government has an approach to how it should be done. should bedual states able to take that information from the federal government and modify it a bit.
we have to have a balance, we have to have the right people own guns. host: donald trump is very pro-gun rights. is painting hillary clinton as being someone who is against the second amendment. will it be difficult to strike that balance? caller: i think so. amendment is always going to be there. there has to be a balance. peoplee to get the right to come together and understand what the situation is now. there's certain kinds of weapons that people should not own. thing is, strike a balance of who should and
shouldn't be allowed to own guns. we have people with mental situations getting a hold of guns. you never know what they are going to do with that gun. tom calling in from new mexico. from southng in carolina. you own a gun. which issue is more important to you, gun control or gun rights? caller: gun control. it is like everybody is saying, it needs a balance. there are certain people who should have a gun. i own a gun. if somebody comes through my door that i did not invite through my door, they will go out in a body bag. i was taught how to take care of myself. host: you say that gun control
is important. are you satisfied with the level of gun control in your state? caller: no. i am from new york. i'm not satisfied. ity need more control on with the people that can get them off the streets. i've seen people, kids go down for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. they've gone down because they were in a situation where they were an accessory. they need to come off the streets. they need to shut down these thugs and all these people that are selling them to gangs and stuff like that. school?carry a gun to hell no. host: up next, larry calling from tuscaloosa, alabama.
you do not own a gun. is gun control the biggest issue over gun rights in your view? caller: yes, ma'am. i don't own a gun, but my wife does. so for guni'm can go on the internet with a paypal or visa card and get a gun. simple as that. folksun control, you have in the pond shop selling grenade pawn shop -- selling grenade launchers. what are they shooting at? it is a shame for this congress to not even attempt to control some of these guns. one of your callers made a statement about black people
should not be having guns. young black thugs and all. folksrson that shot those at the da, was he black? it's a shame and disgrace for this congress to not even try to control these guns. host: larry calling in from alabama. fromxt, paul is calling in wisconsin. what do you think about the gun control debate? caller: good morning. gun rights is the more important issue. this world is full of many atrocities. human beings are capable of horrible things, no matter what the tool, what the means, no
matter what level of control will ever be in place. host: you do not own a gun. but you say gun rights is more important. the state law that has prevented you from getting a gun? caller: i don't own one just by personal choice. the constitution is clear with the second amendment. perceptions and sensitivities nowadays, it is usually argued for hunting and sporting. the second amendment was created hadhe citizens of the u.s. a responsibility as a citizen to stay armed mistake equipped so
if it were ever necessary and the federal government ever did get out of hand, whatever you want to call it -- the weapons come what's available to american citizens is really nothing compared to the weapons the military and the government has. host: james up next calling in from texas. you own a gun. our gun rights more important to you this election or gun control? caller: gun rights. i do own a gun. i live in texas. i don't care whether it's texas or any other state in the country. if you ask any police officers how many murders and right to stop in progress, all of them
will say none. it is up to you to protect yourself. law enforcement is not going to be there when you need a gun. you might want to own one. in the presidential race, do you think the nra made the right choice in backing donald trump given his change in his gun stance? caller: i do not really think the nra should be the political activist organization they have become. i do not mind that they endorsed donald trump. i'm not sure if i will vote for him, but i've already voted for one traitor from the democratic party. i will not vote for two. host: coming up come a we will talk to montgomery county, maryland police chief tom manger.
, joseph lawler will be here to talk about the puerto rico debt crisis. this week in our c-span cities tour, book tv and american history tv goes into the deep south to explore the history and literary life of hattiesburg, mississippi. all of our segments will air together in one block, including a book looking at the role women played in the vietnam war. >> american women who serve in vietnam found that the way they were treated depended on who they were interacting with. many of the women i interviewed said the enlisted men treated that much better than the officers. there were some officers who assumed that, even though these
are american women who are enlisted in the military or coming with major organizations like the red cross, they are somehow there to be available to officers. to be invited to officers parties and be there and be pretty and be an example of a pretty american woman. or, something more insidious. they are sexually available to officers. whereas almost everyone i combatewed from beyond said the men they worked with treated them as a sister come a loved one and somebody they wanted to protect and take care of. because they felt a closeness and developed bonds with the enlisted men, it made them feel like their job was more valuable. congratulations to the class of 2016.
today is your day of celebration and you've earned it. voices crying for peace and light because your choices will make all the difference to you and to all of us. >> do not be afraid to take on cases or new job or new issues that really stretches your boundaries. onrespect your summer abroad real ships rather than internships and the specter of living in your pents basement after graduation day is not likely to be your biggest concern. >> watch commencement speeches to the class of 2016 in their entirety from colleges and universities across the country by business leaders, politicians and white house officials. on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now, we welcome tom manger s the president of the citie
association. he is the police chief of montgomery county, maryland. rise in theng the homicide rates in dozens of cities. tell us a little bit about this report. the findings it had. guest: the most important thing for folks to understand, it we are an association of the largest police jurisdictions in the u.s. and canada. it is the largest and cities and counties, so this is representative of the more large urban jurisdictions around the country. one of the issues we dealt with for many years was the fact that we did not really have statistics that were up-to-date. we would always be months behind
in terms of knowing crime trends and crime numbers, especially if we were experiencing something in our particular jurisdiction, we wanted to see come is this happening all over the country or just here? we started keeping these violent crime statistics of our member agencies. fromwe saw last year 2014-2015 was an increase in violent crime across the country. also just came out with the first-quarter numbers of 2016. unfortunately, we are still seeing an increase in homicides and rapes and other violent crimes. in every single jurisdiction, but in many jurisdictions. overall, the numbers have gone up. host: taking a look at the number of cities where we've seen this increase.
they include long beach, texas: el; arlington, paso, dallas, chicago, orlandoille, florida; work, virginia beach -- newark. is there something in common going on there? guest: it is tough to say because it is different for each city. there are some general categories we've been seeing. first of all, gang activity. , we saw aery county pretty dramatic increase in homicides last year.
it is tied directly to gang-related homicides. when you talk to the superintendent in chicago, they constantly talk about the gang issues they are dealing with. issuey cities, the gang is directly related to the increase in shootings and homicides they are dealing with. , when i talk to my colleagues around the country, especially the chief in washington, d.c., they are arresting repeat offenders. folks that had been involved in this kind of activity before. they've been in jail, gotten out of jail and are still involved in crime. many of the guns they are taking up the streets are from people who are prohibited from possessing a gun. a lot of jurisdictions are seeing the repeat offender issue.
there's also the hair when an --oid epidemic that heroin there's also the heroin and opioid epidemic going on. the homicides, the shootings that occur in cities around the country, so many of them are tied to either gangs or drugs. these are factors we are seeing around the country. chief ink each police each city, they could tell you the trends they are seeing. the interesting thing, not every experiencingis these issues. newyork city has seen it -- york city has seen a decline in homicides. it is not universal, but these factors need to be talked about. host: we are talking to montgomery county police chief
tom manger. talking about a recent report about the rise in homicides in major cities. we have special lines for this discussion. those living in urban areas can call 202-748-8000. those in the suburbs can call 202-748-8001. rural residents can call 202-748-8002. , weers of law enforcement have a line for you, 202-748-8003. to discuss this rise in homicides. let's talk about cities that are seeing a decrease. what are the factors behind that? police technology is always helping police. people watch the csi shows on tv. forensic capabilities that law to solve crimes
has gotten better over the years. the fact that there are more police on the streets today than ever before. we saw a dramatic increase through the cops program back in the 1980's. -- 1990's. that contributed to the decrease in the crime rates throughout the years. you look at the root causes of crime, things like poverty and education levels in high school graduation rates -- and high school graduation rates, unemployment, all these kinds of things that can impact a crime rate, communities are trying to deal with those issues better. one area that has been identified as having impact on crime is dealing with folks that
have mental health issues. in many of our major cities around the country, we are paying more attention to that. not a police chief in this that wewould tell you more people with mental health issues. it really impacted our crime rate. for the last 10 years, we've seen that decline dramatically throughout this country. host: another bit from this piece in "the washington post." officials sayt the causes of the increase our -- are unclear.
comey suggested greater scrutiny of the police possibly change the way that officers and communities interact, an idea he to much disagreement last year. think it is tougher for police to police communities? guest: certainly, there is more scrutiny. the public is demanding more accountable and he. good cops have understand -- understood that for years. folks are quick to criticize police before they know the facts. social media has contributed to that. if they have an officer involved shooting, social media gets information out, much of which may be inaccurate.
the cops are catch-up in terms of getting accurate information out there. really anure that is accurate way to per tray or explain some of the increases in crime. folksst example of what -- what occurred in baltimore after the freddie gay -- freddie gray case, they charge six police officers with crimes related to freddie gray jk death. did that impact morale and the men and women of the baltimore city police department? it did, but short-lived. if you talk to the commissioner, they aretell you seizing more guns off the street than ever before.
notion, i believe the fbi director termed it a chill wind blowing through. if that occurred, it was short-lived. that want toks believe that because they want to blame the police for everything. you have a small percentage of police officers and get a fair -- and i don't feel like i am going to get a fair shake, so i am going to stop doing my job. those folks leave the job or the theirmance is hampered by
supervisors. more.we have first, we have mohammed, calling in from wash d.c. -- calling in from washington, d.c. do?er: what is that i can ones, talked to the young i got locked up. i have a felony on my record. i got caught up. that is how it is. you might do anything so you can eat. what suggestions do you have that i can help the young ones in the area get on a another pass?
what could i do? host: let's give the chief a chance to respond. guest: it is great he wants to do something to help young folks. he can use his experience and talk to folks about decisions they make early in their life kids that are 16 to 18 years old have not reached the emotional maturity they are going to in life. make decisions and we are doing a better job today to not criminalize those decisions or bad choices a kid might make.
we believe some kid 18, 19 years old, who gets caught with marijuana, should not be saddled record for the rest of their life. folks sharing their experience, emphasizing the importance of finishing high school, making .ealthy choices those are great lessons to be learned. marc is calling in from washington. most of these homicides are other gang members. the real problem is jobs.
the numbers are so low that we need to have hope. we need to have hope that people have a future. social security gives you retirement at 62. at average black man dies 62. we need hopes, jobs. sortest of things will out. poverty, ifloyment, you look at the folks that populate our prisons, it is didle of color, people that not finish high school, that did not have a job, substance abuse issues, mental health issues. address those root causes, we can reduce the numbers of people who will have to go to prison. up next, virginia, calling
in from pennsylvania. what is your question? i have three comments. , police officers are my heroes. they do a wonderful job with what they have. they do not get enough credit and they should never be disrespected. , americaning is people have a right to own a gun. i don't believe they should ever be taken away from them. host: we have a lot of collars. do you have a question? caller: wait a minute. mment is close the border, get the drugs out of the country.
when the drugs came in, the crime came in. there are a lot of drug-related crime that goes on. i appreciate her comments. folksw there are a lot of highupport what we do, expectations that police officers acted appropriately. that is the responsibility of a free chief in this country, to make sure their officers are policing fairly. when we do that, we are in the trust and confidence of the community. that is what it is all about. we are speaking with the chief of police of mo ntgomery county, maryland.
you talked a little bit about the ferguson a fact earlier -- the ferguson effect earlier. michael barone talked about that homicides were up 33% on average. researcher for this site said these are not flukes, this is a real increase. the only explanation that gets the timing right is the are -- is the ferguson effect. what can you say to people who see this correlation between an to thee in crime rates fallout after the ferguson incident? enough citiess
seeing decreases in crime that it means this alleged ferguson effect is not universal. that there are things that impact your performance at work. so often, you have folks that want to be police officers, even since the killing of michael brown in ferguson. people want to become police officers. not want to do the job, they would not have joined in the first place. a convenient explanation for blaming the police for everything. accuratehink that is or fair. it does not have basis in reality. for years, researchers have tried to explain why crime rates decline. -- people do give
not give police credit for decreases in crime, but when it increases, they want to blame police. crimey factors impact rates. you look at the age of the population, folks that commit crime are between 16 to 29. ,hen that age group goes up crime will grow up. when the age goes down, crime will go down. those are the folks committing crime. .hat is one factor you look at the number of guns and that number seems to go up every year. there is a number of things impacting crime and a for folks that want to blame the police because that is the narrative and their agenda, it is a convenient excuse.
hasn't happened anywhere around this country? sure. is it the main reason? i don't believe it is. host: we have a lot of collars. -- callers. paul, what is your question? to ask, why isd they don't address the job issue. , why of these programs doesn't he mention the , the policechools is there. it impacts the children at a young age, that crime does not pay.
become a part of the solution out here. theyhave mental programs can send people into and mentor these young kids to let them know crime does not pay. we do have school resource officers that go into all of our high schools that are engaged in counseling and mentoring activities. the school resource officers do very little enforcement type -- thatause we believe is what they do get involved in. his suggestion is a good one. is teachers, police officers, everybody should be mentoring young kids.
if they are not getting the right messages at home, it is for teachers and mentors and school resource officers that have as big an impact as we would like. host: one of the effects of the is the idea of police using body cameras. we have seen cities impose that. there is a piece called the body camera fact that suggests that .ay not be the best policy cops with body cameras suffered a 15% increase of us all.
brin representing two .2 million officer hours of duty, it also says supplying cops with body cameras does not alter the fact that america is becoming more violent. what do you think about body cameras? guest: i am for them. it is not on at the moment, but i have one on. where we pilot program had nearly 100 of these out. now we will have 1000 of these cameras out by the ended -- by the end of the summer. there has been an increase in assaults on police officers around the country. think there is much of a correlation with the fact there are officers wearing body cameras. the theory might be officers are more hesitant to defend take somebody into
custody or to use force because of the camera. had --erience we have the public is seeing what a challenging job these police officers have. are presentedy with an have to deal with. secondly, police officers are using great restraints. they are the most important tool that police officers have. part of ourn training in terms of de-escalating situations. using your ability to communicate with people in all situations. whether you are dealing with a garages individual or a being broken into. an important ability for a police officer to have. body cameras will be a good
thing for everybody. folks have said no, we want police wearing them because we don't trust them and we want to see what they are doing. cops, it does take getting used to. it does take some getting used to. on, and turning it off when it is not appropriate to have it on. training our officers and getting them used to having it on. it will take time. it is a positive. i have had zero police officers tell me i am sorry i was wearing this camera. i have had many tell me i was glad i have this camera on. manger is the
president of the chief association. former police chief in fairfax county, virginia. up next, roger, california. a retired law enforcement official. what is your question? your beingppreciate on the air. i retired in 1995. camerast have body then. i never had an incident where i was written up or suspended for any reason. are thebody cameras greatest thing in the world and i commend your department for going through them.
anyone getting busted doing a crime with a gun or firearms, do like they do in thailand. never seele will anything but the inside of prison walls for the rest of their lives. the chief agive chance to respond. it is being tougher with penalties and answer? as i mentioned before, folks who have mental health issues, addiction issues, going to jail is not going to help them. it is certainly something we believe in. where thesome folks community is safer if they are behind bars. some gang banger doing armed robberies and other violent crimes and they get
arrested, those are the folks we longer they spend in prison. those are folks presenting real dangers to our community. smart sentencing is good for our community and will help keep us safer. you think the administration has done enough to address the rise in crime rates? they have done a lot. i will speak from the justice department. i know the former attorney general came under criticism from law enforcement groups, but the department of justice, especially attorney general
lynch and holder strengthened at some of the federal prosecution. that has been a great help to larger urban areas in this country. federal prosecution side, when we are doing drug and gang these long-term investigations, we are seeing great results there. it is a team effort. it is always resource issues. i am not sure the country is going -- they have taken a few bad examples of abuse and they want to disregard the program. there are some controls that can be done. asset forfeiture is a great way to address hard-core career criminals.
that regard has been assisting officials. up next, jackie, inverness, florida. can you address the increase or decrease in major states that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana? you i spokel tell with the chief in seattle, washington, aurora, denver. we are just starting to get some that i am finding interesting. one, this anticipated decrease in arrests in crime related to drugs has not been seen.
there have been fewer arrests for possession. he stop people who buy it and sell it illegally, you have people buying it in one state lawfully and transferring it to another. we have seen some up takes in drug-related crime. -- the sky isn not falling. host: arthur, chesapeake, virginia. caller: i would like to ask a couple of questions. it [indiscernible]
and they arens tanks, to have these that is not protecting the people. that is going to war. believe -- but not these assault weapons and stuff like that. the chief agive chance to respond to that. brings up the issue of the militarization of police. this got the conversation going. surplus program has saved the taxpayers in this
need to put their gear on. you can make a good case that it does. police are getting smarter about approach these demonstrations. caller: i have a couple of comments. ima 82, an old guy. hobos were never violent. i look into the book and i remember we had a gun club. theould carry guns into school. we would have to put them in a particular place, but we did not have this adversity we have now.
alecld rather have a smart policeman then no policeman. most have a tough job and people make it worse because they want their 15 seconds of fame or whatever. would that was accused -- when i was a kid, we would have fistfights and such. i think it is because of the parents not doing their job. the point, ings up do see, when we look at homicides, people are quicker to to turn to violence and weapons to resolve disputes today than they were when he was a kid. we could debate the reasons for that. is that the fact there are more guns on the street?
desensitized to violence? is it people are not taught the values and the sanctity of life? homicide on a regular basis. for these folks, it is acceptable to grab a gun and shoot somebody. this is what we are dealing with today. james, yulee, florida. the reason for a lot of , i had a hard time with police. work ku kluxs they klan. i moved to delaware.
delaware, i found nice policeman there. i didn't think there were nice policeman. that trip to delaware caused me [indiscernible] i had a beef with the police. we were trying to kill as many -- we were trying to get prepared to kill as many as we could. stayed up there two weeks and before i left, i was a diehard christian. [indiscernible]
host: let's give the chief a chance to respond. guest: the issue of police accountability and the way , fairly,force the law without bias, conversations are going on in every city, every town in this country. those are good conversations to have. arefact remains that police suffering from the sins of their fathers and grandfathers. policing has changed over the years. have an opinion about police. not much is going to change that. understand wes to are only as good as our last contact with somebody.
no matter what the interaction was. they will base their opinions about police in general based on one context -- based on one contact. thank you for joining us this morning. coming up next, we are going to joseph lawler. he will be here to discuss the puerto rico -- -- puerto rico debt crisis. >> on american history tv, the september marks the opening of museum of african american history and culture.
is live withory tv a conference with scholars from across the country discussing topics including religion, politics, culture, historic preservation and interpretation. eastern, the commission hears testimony from two fbi informants, mary jo cook and how she penetrated it war organization. >> the birmingham policeman set up the beating up of the freedom riders? >> they were being badly. >> did they give you the time they promised to perform the beating?
>> 15 minutes with no intervention from any police officer. >> what that opportunity gave them was an opportunity to go to college. money,ved some of that send themselves through college. lawyers,me doctors, one became the first female manager of any department at --. als, became principle surgeons, politicians, pilots. thatwere able to do because they had access to professional baseball. >> how women aided the war effort. baseballof women jk leagues, including the all-american girls professional
baseball league featured in the movie "a league of their own." ferraro.e is geraldine i stand before you to proclaim america as a land where dreams can come true for all of us. >> the vice president acceptance atech of geraldine ferraro the democratic national convention in san francisco. she was the first woman nominated for vice president by a major party. for the complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: we're joined by joseph
lawler. we will be discussing highlights of the puerto rican debt bill introduced in the house last week and what it means for the pensionho face liabilities. debt bill forthis puerto rico. >> this is the bill they addressed. anticipated to be introduced the previous three weeks and i finally came out with it this past week. they have shown it to the public , people can read it. that is as far as it has gone. it is the first step in a long process of getting it through the house.
what does the bill seek to do? guest: restructure the debt of puerto rico. they have about $70 billion of debt they said they cannot pay. to give themgress a way to restructure that. toy do not have the ability go through bankruptcy. as a state, they don't have the sovereign power they need to address of the elves. congress tome to look for a way to go to creditors, to the people who own those lawns and restructure the bonds andho own those restructure the debt. host: we are talking with joseph lawler. we are talking about the bill to address the puerto rican debt
crisis. your calls in.g demo bang independents can call (202) 748-8002. outside of the united states, you can call (202) 748-8003. house republicans and others are stressing this is not a bailout. what was the concern about whether this would be a bailout or not guest:? is one of the critical parts about this, the fear of bailouts. concern. larger the public does not want to see bailouts. they don't want to see puerto
bailed out. the larger fear is if congress , indebted states and cities will also come with their hands outstretched to congress. that is a key motivation i have from lawmakers. if you give money or some kind of help to puerto rico that is not appropriate, you will have illinois or chicago, or another state or city that has gotten into trouble with debt looking for help from the taxpayers. that is one of the key issues here. they don't want to see any kind , anything that looks like a bailout involved in this bill. paul ryan, the chairman of the national resources committee, they have been adamant this is
not a bailout, it is a restructuring. this the right way, there will be a real crisis. schools will not be open. there will be pressure for a real bailout. they face so much pressure to pass something. host: let's look at paul ryan discussing the debt will. >> we have it where we want it. it prevents any taxpayer bailout or some precedent that could affect the bond market. we want to make sure the board is strong. we want to make sure we keep this away from the taxpayer. we also want to make sure it is we have the tools
to fix this problem. our fellow citizens are in a tough spot. host: more on about protecting the taxpayer from other states seeking relief. how big an issue is this? the majority of the states are doing well in terms of fiscal situations. a lot of them have rebuilt. receipts goen tax back up and have had an easier time balancing their budget. some states have gotten into .rouble they're going to have trouble paying those off. the state ofear is
illinois, which has racked up about $111 billion of net pension liability. those are pension obligations in the future they do not have the assets to back up. they will have to find a way to close that gap. how they will do it is unclear. illinois, connecticut, a handful of others are problem states were something will have to be done eventually. this something that will be determined in the future. a bloomberg piece went into more detail about these pension plans that are causing problems from some states. and city pensions posted the lowest return since the credit crisis. funds count on to keep them afloat.
system had no gains left, seeking out a median increase. is there a way to address this or fix this issue before we get these statesof seeking help from the government? you will have good years and bad years. over the course, it is hard to know what you can count on. happen, these to states will need to make full contributions to their pension , keeping buses running, hospital open, things like that.
at some point, it is likely to involve restructuring the pension obligations and telling what they signed up for, what they were told they were going to be paid is likely to be altered one way or another. of states, those obligations are protected by law and changing those will not be easy. we are talking to joseph lawler about the puerto rico debt crisis and the impact it could have four u.s. states. is louise from san antonio, texas. caller: they have been run in --
running a tremendous amount of commercials asking us to call our congressmen and say we are against this puerto rican bailout. they are talking about seniors losing their income. andis this organization what are their motives if it is bailout.payer thank you. i cannot speak to that individual commercial, but one answer that comes to mind as to who might be behind it, there are a lot of owners of these debts who are facing cuts on those bonds. you own a puerto rican government bond, what you are is a billm congress
being passed back could result in the value of that bond being cut. are investors who do not want to see it reduced, restructured. they want 100 percent on the dollar. i cannot say specifically who is behind it, but there are plenty of groups and people with an this.st in seeing or oust, the bill is shaped in a over thevor creditors puerto rican public sector worker retirees, who also faces the prospect of losing out on the benefits of the deal. that is likely to be the case. there are also ideological problems with the ideal of a bailout.
are house republicans looking out now is a bailout. how you define that is subjective. people believe that for ideological reasons. mentioned during one hearing, was with warren pointing out the similarities between a bailout at this level in the bailout of banks. puerto rico is causing a humanitarian problem. can you talk about this specifically and how it is similar or different? elizabeth worn has been active on these issues and hawkish in terms of making sure things do not get bailout. hearing, she made it clear she was -- he thought
the government should be as proactive as handling puerto rico jk crisis as they did the financial crisis in 2008. they went out of their way to find buyers to save a bank so its owners were not left out in the cold. she was same age treasury should have the same help for puerto rico. about that, what you are talking about is an island of 3.5 million people who are u.s. citizens. that is a lot of people and they face a tough time. you have these lawmakers, bernie sanders of vermont, really being aggressive in telling the treasury department and other members of congress -- there is ofide of a here, the needs
the people in puerto rico and they are facing a crisis, the possibility of business collapsing, commerce flowing to the point nothing gets done. hospitals not being there for people who are sick. people who are leaving the island, which is happening. the same way there was an urgent need to stem the crisis in 2008, when it looked like the financial system would collapse, kind of the same feeling now that you heard from senator warren with regard to puerto rico. host: jim, you are on with joseph lawler. for taking myyou call. i am against this bailout completely. themselves into this problem, they can get out. the only reason they want to is so they can
bailout their friends in the state here who have overspent, overpromised promised. they have no desire to throw -- to do anything but throw money at the problem. they should not bail them out. you sound like a lot of the republican lawmakers and members of congress who are concerned about that. problems --jk puerto rico's problems are of their own doing. and ase a territory, such, they have a unique status under the constitution and they are overseen by congress area they cannot do things states could do to take care of their own problems. a lot of those decisions are made at the congressional level. congress has a different
responsibility to puerto rico than it does to the states. the opinion you for waste is the kind of thing paul ryan is concerned about. he is going out of his way to say -- to try to talk about the provisions of the bill and why no taxpayer money is going to go into the bill as far as he is concerned and prevent that perception, that it is a problem for him. puerto rico doesn't have the ability to do what some states can do. what can states do? they cannot file bankruptcy. what our options available to states? they can rewrite their own constitution, they can say, in theory, we are changing the way teachers are paid, the way .iremen are paid
we are going to change the legal pensionons for these obligations or other debt. they have more autonomy. that is the main thing. they have more autonomy in setting their budgets and changing laws. puerto rico does not have that. host: we are talking to joseph lawler about the puerto rico debt crisis bill. democrats can call in and join the conversation (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 748-8002. an of our callers mentioned ad running in that location. from a group an ad called the center for individual freedom, that spent nearly $2 million on ads are the bill was
written. video bang clip. >> who will bailout puerto rico?
you will. if puerto rico is allowed to declare bankruptcy, high spending states like illinois will also want to declare bankruptcy. retirement accounts crushed. tell congress stop the washington bailout of puerto rico. what took congress so long giving this -- given this crisis? guest: you have two competing interests here. one, you saw it there. the owners of the debt. three competing interests. the owners of the debt. we do not know who funded that
ad. guess there are people who own those bonds, including retirees. they have a vested interest in not seeing those given a haircut. then you have the people of puerto rico. they need a functioning government, the ability to issue debt and have finances working. you have members of congress from every state and they don't want to see taxpayers picking up the bill for another state. state thatfrom a manages finances responsibly, you don't want your taxpayers picking up the tab for states who have been irresponsible. it is a matter of a lot of want tog interest who see this ago a certain way. they have had to work hard to balance those interests and do
that is not going to wind up with any one of them outraged. the case with any legislative process, some will end up being outraged. host: we are talking about the puerto rican debt relief bill with joseph lawler. up next, rose, staten island, new york. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate this subject coming up. -- puertoon i have rico has turned down statehood so many times. they will not be able to vote in the general election in november because they chose to. they have gotten so many benefits.
forve a lot of respect puerto rico, but they got themselves into this. they have not paid enough into -- to deserve this kind of bailout. they pay their taxes and do so much, but they chose not to be a state. the state should come first. they are putting in their equal whoe as opposed to the ones declined statehood repeatedly. let's give joseph lawler a chance to respond. guest: they have not voted for statehood. there is strong support for statehood. they are u.s. citizens. they serve in the u.s. military, they pay taxes, they do not vote for the president, but they are congress,d here in
not by a voting member, however. they are american. you are right though, it involves the question of what are the responsibilities of the territory to the u.s. and what are the responsibilities of the federal government to a territory like puerto rico, kuan, and the district of columbia is also not a state. of have these questions lines of authority, responsibility, who is , what dole for what the members of congress over to u.s. citizens who might not have the ability to vote for .resident, host: can you discuss the role of the presidential debate.
something senator sanders does is he has turned this into an example of different interests , or theclasses millionaires and billionaires versus the working people. an issue of it is technocratic administration. clinton has staked out the position that the obama and jack lew has said this is not the bill we want. it doesn't include the fiscal expansion we would like to have seen. it is something that will avert the catastrophe. the obama administration is behind this bill. so is hillary clinton. up next, calvin calming
and from the virgin islands on our democratic line. you are on. good morning. the virgin islands is facing a looming debt the virgin islands is also facing a debt crisis. we have a huge unfunded debt problem in the territory. i would like to know what protections territories might have that cities and dates would have. we know that detroit filed for bankruptcy. and whether there is any debt relief plan to put in place a financial oversight board to look at how any kind of relief programs given to the territory would managed -- would be managed by someone outside of the territory? question.at you mentioned a few things.
u.s. virgin islands, i don't know exactly what the pension problems are, but pension liabilities are also a big problem for puerto rico. have about $46 million of pension liabilities. they are facing the same issues that you are facing the u.s. virgin islands. -- precedentt is is set is a great question. knowledge, it seems like this does clear precedent for territories for setting up a introl board that would be place. if it can apply to puerto rico, it can apply to the u.s. virgin islands or another territory that runs into this problem. it creates a board that has the power to go into puerto rico and make decisions about spending and taxes, what to prioritize,
and what not. also, contingencies for the board to restructure the debt in an ordered way under the eye of a bankruptcy judge. hours to manage the affairs of the. you have crafted it in a way meant to never apply to the city or state, but it looks to me that it could apply to a territory the future. host: although it is unclear but it will be, these mod might be something that looks more akin to the bankruptcy in detroit? guest: probably not. that was a municipal bankruptcy, something you can do through the existing bankruptcy code. this is something more like what we saw for washington, d.c. in
the 1990's when they ran into financial problems. congress has a special relationship with the district of columbia and has the power to come in and set the control board. for over a decade, the financial control board made these decisions for the district. wastually the board removed. there are several examples from history where the higher level of the moment has come in and impose a financial control board. other one i would mention would the 1970's.city in famously, president gerald ford assistance.ind of this is not a case of congress saying puerto rico, dropdead,
but it is to instill a board. we will see if it works in puerto rico. it is something that presumably could apply to another territory like the virgin islands. host: up next to republican incumbent james closing in from north carolina. you are on with joseph lawler. caller: good morning. i think the big question here -- with the example you just gave us, you said that gerald ford said to new york, dropdead. it sounds to me like you have is conservative getting blamed for not bailing out liberals. the big question is, and i can't believe no one is asking -- you keep saying, great question. they are not asking me questions. they're asking, is going to save me. the question is who equips the
states and territories? the answer is liberal democrats. every civil time. you don't bring it. that is the debate, what were and what doesn't. if you want to go into debt, elect a liberal. if you want to succeed, elect a conservative republican. am i right? 100 percent right that this is a birthday present state issue. you have those in the position of having to come to congress to look for help, and right now, that, is the house and controlled by republicans. you have to mimic of a partisan clash. that is one of the damage we have to watch out for and some that love is mentioned specific the.
i spoke with orrin hatch, and he mentioned, in particular, he does not want to bail out blue states that he perceives as y couldmore than the sentd and havg been lands for workers, plan that other states don't have. that is an additional issue that, as a conservative lawmaker, you don't want to have to step in and make a hard decision to help those who are not even in particular that is the problem for state governors, legislators who will find that the help they need may be less willing to come to their aid because they are not on the same side of the aisle. host: this debate has caused problems were some lawmakers as
"political" pointed out -- out.tico" pointed the congressional fix say they are can turned the to support.embers several of the more vocal conservative iconoclasts sit on the national -- natural resources panel. can you talk about the politics and how it is playing out? guest: go back to 2006 with the carp legislation -- legislation. there was more spending, more
bailouts that they really did not like doing. starting in 2008, you saw the beginning of a backlash. they voted down the first version, looking down on recession. it's then, you have seen an increasing resistance against the right against even bailouts for businesses or uneven treatment of different people. you have seen it certainly with the growth of the tea party, expressively anti-bailout action. along the way, you have seen it in a number of other instances. anything that has the apparent -- appearance of a bailout will have popular pressure against it. lawmakers,so seen for similar reason, turning because policies that in the past republicans have been more
willing to support. for example, trade. this year, with the work of the obama administration on the transpacific partnership you have a real mutiny amongst conservative republicans who, in the past may have been inclined , but court free-trade they did not like the terms of this tpp or the fact that it was coming from an obama administration that they don't trust. those factors are at play. the major dynamics of the emergence on the right. from west up, john palm beach, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i have three quick questions. i hate one callers have three quick questions and the guest is after the first
question. maybe you can help mr. john lawlor. doesn't puerto rico receive more aid per capita? what is the worst that could happen if they go bankrupt? i seem to remember five or six years ago, a hard nosed governor came in there and tried for two years to get this fixed. of course, he got voted out of office because not like the so-called troponin actions. the lastt's start with one first. we're talking about a republican for theactually admired fiscally conservative measures he took. ultimately, they were unpopular. .e was voted out mentioned 2008e
-- maybe 2012 -- as a potential running mate for the ticket. he was not able to win reelection. you mentioned how would bankruptcy make the situation and put her equal worst. the problem is they cannot go bankrupt. a corporation can go through the bankruptcy process and avoid a panic among creditors or customers. cities can also go through that process. ricoico cannot -- puerto cannot. you have these competing claims on the tax revenues. it would be a free-for-all. no one would know who is getting paid. you would see msl off of government bonds from all the
u.s. actual funds and hedge funds. then, you talk with the possibility of financial market stress. with the claims not being resolved, they would never get back to accessing the markets which means that could not -- they cannot pay for projects like ridges, roads, building new buildings for the government. over time, that would turn into funding ongoing day-to-day services. you really would have this a regular situation where things would grind to a halt and create thaneconomic problems their already are. question was about the amount of welfare that puerto rico first use. i don't know if they receive
more per capita. one thing to keep in mind is they are relatively poor compared to the mainland. add, when the government of puerto rico did a study to find out what went wrong, one of the findings was the safety net there is expensive to the point and it discouraged work slowed commerce. that is something that the government has identified as a potential problem and an area for reform. craig calling from new york. you are on with joseph lawler. caller: thank you for taking my call, i appreciate it. i don't understand. go onou say they cannot
to bankruptcy, that is not true. they can go on to bankruptcy. people either bonds because the bonds are at a higher rate which means they are at a riskier rate to buy. that thisw going in could have. it is like anything else in the world. explain to me why they cannot go bankrupt. i know you just gave reasons, but, of course they can go bankrupt. host: let's get them a chance to explain. guest: they cannot go bankrupt under bankruptcy code which is the provisions under law. it is not applicable. the bankruptcy code is not applicable to puerto rico. greg is right at any time inestor buys a bond or share
the company or makes any kind of investment, they base it on the underlying legal structures that apply to, in this case, puerto rico. when the investors bought the bonds, in many cases, what we are talking about is speculators who bought them after it was clear that puerto rico would have trouble repaying them. they made that that based on what they thought was the underlying law. you don't have to have too much foresight to have seen, a year ago, the laws with respect to puerto rico with change. in one sense, it is true. it is a good point that there is bankruptcy in the sense that the law will be changed to find some way to resolve the different claims, but it will not be the federal bankruptcy code. host: up next, on the democratic
line, dave from new york city. caller: thank you for c-span. differentt to offer a perspective, maybe more fundamental. discussion,nderful a deeper discussion on the other ,-span channel, a panel representing the most fundamental issues of puerto rico, representing the spectrum of thebi breakdown situation they are in. in my view, as an american from new york, i believe the case of puerto rico is the most important issue, international as an americance taxpayer. we have taken their sovereignty. i was told,people --
and central park, 30-40 years 1868, have a poster from 3 years after the civil war was over. i was told that americans went down to puerto rico to help them win independence. the puerto ricans and the cubans launched rebellions. host: we only have a few minutes left, do you have a specific question? caller: i want puerto rico to be free. they are caught in something called free association, an orwellian lie. they cannot do anything about anything at the callers are raising because fundamentally to have no sovereignty. guest: it is an accident of history, really, this fiscal crisis that we are seeing. you have the violence, which is part of the u.s., but in some
ways, historically and culturally distinct. the fate is tied up with the distinctions of members of the u.s. congress from utah, in particular, and all other states that are far away. i guess the one point that i would make is in 2012, 60% of ae residents voted to become u.s. state. they are u.s. citizens and have the rights and obligations of all other citizens, except they do not vote for president. that is no different than the people here in the district of columbia. they do fight in the military and the members of congress to care about them, the same with the care about other u.s. citizens. host: joseph lawler with "the washington examiner," thank you for joining us this morning. coming up next, we take your calls on the issue of the new
overtime rule announced by the obama administration earlier this week. we would like to hear about your work experience. have your wages or hours changed? you can start calling in now. make less than $50,000 per year, you can call, (202) 748-8000. if you make between $50,000 and $100,000, call (202) 748-8001. those making more than $100,000, call (202) 745-8002. if you own a business, call, (202) 748-8003. "fore we get to the calls, on newsmakers" this week, we were joined by mac thornberry of texas who saw his committees .budget passed here is a clip from the interview.
[video clip] >> to think a debate over whether congress should authorize the fight with isis should happen through the defense policy process? is that something that should come up in your colleagues should vote on? >> i think it should come up, we should vote on it. i think this is of such importance, it should stand on its own. we had to debate and vote on on theng the 2001 aumf bill that we considered this week. i think that needs to be updated. as a matter of fact, the house passed up dates to better reflect the way the terrorists are spreading out. i think we ought to have that debate. that.ught to update the speaker has asked us to have find a wayessions to
to get a majority vote to do that. lots of people have different ideas. so far, it's not think there is one approach that has gotten a majority view. i think we should hear that is our job. >> with the amount of resources allocated to the islamic state, is the strategy to win? avoidould describe it as disaster. the president has slowly dialed up pressure, slight relaxation on the rules of when they can drop bombs. it is not really to win. there has been success on the the real story is isis is spreading to more countries than before. it is not even very successful in containing them
geographically. >> so the u.s. is not trying to defeat isis now? >> in may be someone's stated intention, but not what the facts on the ground show. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are now taking your calls about the new overtime rules announced by the obama administration this week. on specialyour calls lines. those making less than $50,000 per year can call, (202) 748-8000. ande making between $50,000 $100,000, (202) 748-8001. those making more than $100,000, (202) 745-8002. , (202) owners can call 748-8003. we can talk about whether your wages and hours have changed over the last five years.
first, let's take a look at president obama. [video clip] overtime and the 40 hour week are pillars of the economy. the overtime rules have only been updated once the 1970's. 40 years ago, more than 60% of for updateseligible to their salaries. now, it is down to 7%. only 7% of workers are eligible for overtime based on their income. this week, mike administration took a step to help more workers get the overtime pay that they earned. the department of labor finalized a rule to extend protections to 42 million americans. it will host wages by $12 million, over doubling the overtime salary threshold.
what that means is those who are in less than $47,500 a year will qualify for overtime or the employer can choose to give them a raise. or, if they don't want to raise wages, they can let them go home after 40 hours. anyway you slice it, it is a win for working families. we are making sure that every three years there will be an automatic update to the threshold. host: going over some of the details for the overtime goal for salaried workers announced by the obama administration, the r role will be effective on december 1. it raises the salary threshold at which white-collar workers
overtime pay.or host: there is also some criticism of this rule in today's "washington post" there is a piece outlining potential pitfalls of the role that opponents are concerned about. it says the people most affected by this could millennials and college graduates who may not see the increased earners. it says many office workers and entry-level professionals known
as knowledge workers who may be accustomed to working from home a couple of days a week are leaving early in exchange for answering e-mails from the couch at night could find such freedom curtailed in the way that it would give employers less flexibility on how they manage. we want to know about how your wages have changed over the last four years. first, gerald from nevada. you make more than $50,000 per year. have your earnings changed? continue toarnings go up because i'm part of a labor union. i work for a private contractor. our union negotiates wages, and benefits every three years. i ask you, are you a salaried employee or hourly under your cba? caller: we are already --
hourly. i think salary, in some cases, it works, but it is a way for the employee to get more work out of you and pay you less. host: as you agree with the new administration role for salaried employees that is aimed at giving them more overtime if they work over 40 hours a week? caller: i believe if you work more than 40 hours a week, you should get overtime. i get overtime when i work more than eight hours a day. work double time when i more than 10 hours a day. i get overtime on saturdays. i get double time if i work more than eight hours a day on saturdays, and doubletime on sundays. religious that have to work on sundays, they are greatly compensated. i work to live, not live to
work. host: up next, chris from indianapolis. you are this is owner. what you think about this rule? caller: generally speaking, i think we allthat i want things to be as efficient as possible. to me, it is most efficient is the business owner and the employees like the contracts for working versus government. so much more money for government and politicians to come up with rules and regulations. they have to manage all of this when, if an employee -- two people could simply sit down. when i started my own company, i started cleaning gutters and my company, and i started growing,
and i hired people. host: let me ask you this, do employees whoied might be affected by this rule? caller: i do not. i just wanted to call in any way. wages generally speaking for my employees have done of over the last five years for those who make good are on time. the call and ask me to say, what can i do to make more money. i tell them, they do it, and they make more money. ,he people who come in late treat my customers bad, abuse drugs and alcohol, they get let go. sated -- opy compensated from government for
making that decision is being if people just make good decisions, they will be fine, no matter where they come from. host: that is chris calling in from indiana. a little bit more from the "washington post" piece about the potential pitfalls of the bill. it says how employers respond depends on the type of work that they do, the size of the organization, and level of trust. some may choose to bump workers above the salary threshold, avoiding the problem entirely, but many will probably be be , atsified as hourly workers which time the number of hours they work might be limited or closely monitored and tracked. that is one potential outcome of ule.r
next, a business owner, steve. what you think of the new rule? terrible.think it is we don't need the government telling us what to do. host: what -- how might this impact your business and your employees? i don't think it does anything. we are union contractors. we negotiate with the union. with theiates contractors as to who gets paid and how much.
this obama, he has to get the hell out of here. host: next up is mohammed from all caps you, virginia. you make less than $50,000 per year. how have your wages changed in the last four years? taking thank you for my call. it is my second year working as an uber driver. a week, and days more than 50 hours based on the .ber platform up and mak drop off, and make money. over 40 hours, who will pay for me? for peoplederstand
ber.ing for over -- u host: i am unfamiliar with how they pay. lumpou paid hourly or a salary? drop-off,ckup and comes off of what you make. each trip that i make. the rest is mine. seven dollars would come to me and three dollars to uber. what i'm saying is if i do not have a customer in my car, i am phone is expecting calls. or, at 4:00 in the morning
3:00 in the morning -- host: let me ask you one more question. compared to this, did you work for a salaried job before? are you making more or less than you did then? caller: i was making very good money as a contractor making than$100,000, but now less $48,000 a year. host: ok. , robert from missouri. robert makes more than $50,000 per year. heavy senior wage change? caller: no. basicallyt to say if if you take the view of the big picture, which most people are not doing. they are focused on where they are at in this picture.
there was a famous guy in the bible, two guys. i see those issues have not changed from then until now. said the love of money is the root of all evil. they became. the roman empire. what i see here is the same thing. at the bottom of all the istroversy and conflict greed. somebody is taking advantage of somebody else. as st. paul said, it will come .ack to bite you if present obama is trying to be fair with everybody, but what is going on in the people who have got all of this money, like the people in puerto rico, the isestors, the bottom line money. the victims are the people of puerto rico.
from the business standpoint. one of many who have concerns about how this rule will play out. next up, a business owner, stan, calling in from california. you have concerns about this rule? caller: yes, i do. that thet is odd government cannot go along and ir own books. in california, we had a rule last year with a were mandated to give a certain amount of thickly or vacation time to an employee by hours. .t goes up to 24 hours per year host: are your employees hourly or salary? caller: hourly. host: this rule does not apply specifically to hourly employees. are you worried there will be an
impact to business owners like you? caller: of course. anytime they put of regulation messes up the overhead. my overhead used to be 37%, and it is 50% now. carl up next, we have from new jersey. you make over $100,000 a year. heavy senior wages and hours change? caller: no. $100,000 laster year. the year before that, i made $10,000. was -- ifor that, i was operating as a business. i did computer programming. sometimes you have salary, there is a variety
of different ways. host: let me ask you, when you were working as a salaried employee, did you find yourself working more than 40 hours per week? caller: i expected that. host: did you expect to be paid for that time? caller: the salary is supposed to encompass that. , putting onue here theyonomist hat, is that have subsidies to make their own decision about whether to work for a certain amount of pay or not, whether to have a job that involves a lot of hours or not. they can make the decision if they have what they need in order to survive separately from
waged work. there have various versions except it through our history. that wasyne had one basically an endowment for landless people. bellamy, looking backwards with the credit cards which were actually credit you were given each year. more recently, we had known friedman's income tax proposal, which was never enacted. instead, this bogus earned which is not what negative income tax was supposed to do. let me ask you this, do you think that changing -- this
relation is aimed at pay. to think that regulations aimed at pay are effective at all? caller: that is besides the point. hardshipauses a lot of whosmall business owners might be caught up in these regulations. host: that is carl calling in from new jersey. we have a lot of calls to get to on this question about wages. kevin is calling from washington, d.c.. kevin makes less $50,000 per year. heavy senior wages and hours change? caller: my wages are negotiated of ae union, and part benefit package that includes .ealth care benefits
host: you are one of several people who is a member of a union. you think that is the answer? do think more businesses should move to negotiate through a union? might that help with the pay and benefits that people seek? the union market share is shrinking, so that probably will not happen. host: what do you think about this measure by the obama administration to boost overtime pay, do you think it is a good idea? , butr: it is a good idea gained back to health insurance, theyhe puerto rican talk, , the state saves
money with health insurance like medicaid for also. the way to get that is to have politicians.ive and hardlycaucus anyone knows about it. host: thank you for that. in this discussion about wages and the number of hours worked, in today's "you are times" business section, there was a feature that talks about experiments that says shorter hours could yield productivity. sweden has long been a laboratory for the initiative to strike a better work-life
thatce and the idea treating workers well helps the bottom line. parental leave and childcare policies there are among the most generous. that a 30 hour per week program has sharply reduced absenteeism and improved productivity and worker health. the study says, we have had 40 week of a 40 hour work and now we are looking as society with higher sick is an earlier retirement. they're looking at the effect that that could have as we overtime obama's new policy. we have daniel calling in from louisiana. you make tweet $50,000 and $100,000 per year.
has that changed or has the number of hours you work changed? caller: i am retired, but between work and retirement, it varies. host: what you think about the new overtime policy? caller: i think it is a good .dea i heard donald trump say the minimum wage -- you know, people cannot live with the minimum wage. not to get rich, just to make a living. i don't know why it is so hard for people to understand. you have these bible people -- i don't know where they get this from. .ou have people trying to live you cannot live on seven dollars and something, you have people working 40, 50 hours, and still
cannot live without money. live and let live. greed, that is the biggest problem. you have the top 1%-2% making all the money. how much is enough? host: ok. that was daniel calling from louisiana. his words echo a tweet that we got that says stagnant wages for 30 years show that business needs to be pushed into fair pay. up next, joseph. have your work hours or wages changed in the last five years? caller: no, ma'am. host: what you think of this new rule that would boost the qualifications for the number of workers who would qualify for overtime pay? caller: i think the president is
doing the right thing. i support my president 100%. i voted for him twice both terms. i think congress should be on minimum wage. they get a raise each year. theceos make 300% more than bottom man. i think it is time that they help the little guy out. just like the guy from louisiana said, they are too greedy, they want more and more and want to give you less and less. they want to take with our benefits to put more in their pockets. republicans say they are a christian nation. i believe in jesus and believe does goodhe poor, and things. he does not try to take away our schools, which people need. host: let me interrupt to say, thisbout the concerns that
will some business owners to cut back on hours, reduce staff, and have a negative economic impact? .aller: they always cry wolf i'm sure some people will have the problem. no doubt in my mind. if they can do this overseas and have benefits, why can't we all wageat least a $15 minimum ? at least. now, they want to take over time a way to? i think that is bull hockey. yourneed to pay for services. "the wall street journal" in the outlook section had a piece talking about obama's overtime chime era
40.being compensated for in the last 5-6 years, we had a change in pay structure. the old pay structure had been if you worked more than the 40 you were hired to work, you would receive time and a half. that has been reduced to regular time plus $10. host: would of regulation like , it would not apply to the salary you are making now, but would it make a difference in the past for you in terms of how much you earn? caller: on-site, it cut out, can you say it again? host: in the past, might you have in a fitted have the rule -- benefited had the role been
implemented when you had a salary position? caller: i have always been a high wage earner. the reason i called is because more and more demands are being earners. high wage there is no compensation for the excess time that is allocated to producers. if your goals are not met while the expectations have been raised, it puts you in a position of either disciplinary as the timeell taken away from your families for the requirements of the job. i think our government is trying to realize that it has not addressed. that is david calling in from florida. after the rule was announced last week, senator patty murray to talkthe senate floor
about what the rule would mean for the middle class. [video clip] >> today, the department of labor has decided to raise the overy threshold to just $47,000 per year. that would restore protections for millions of americans. it is especially important, by the way, for parents. think about what it would mean for a working mom who right now works overtime into not get paid for it. by restoring this protection, she could finally work the 40 hour week and spend more time with her kids. she would have more money in her pocket to host her family's economic security. that is why it is so important for the struggling middle class. when workers put in more than 40 should beweek, they
paid for it. that is the bottom line. i have heard from second listeneagues who, if you closely, i tried to argue that businesses cannot operate unless they exploit workers -- democrats fundamentally disagree. when they are able to make ends meet and succeed, businesses succeed, the economy succeeds. that's part of what makes america great. the senate talking about the new overtime rule. for those making under $50,000, you can call, (202) 748-8000. more than $50,000 and under $100,000, (202) 748-8001. and those making over $100,000 can call (202) 745-8002.
host: of next, we have luan calling from wisconsin. you make more than $50,000. have you seen your wages change? caller: i am retired, but i have had many years of working. i studied economics. host: what you think about this new overtime rule? caller: i think it is ignorant. i'm sorry. i'm tired of people who are so ignorant.
one, you have to earn your money, you have to be worth it. whatnow, if you watch wisconsin,adison, the most liberal city of the state, came out against this. host: let me ask you this -- caller: number one, washington, d c should have no business telling people what to pay people. get rid of all of these dictatorship companies. up next, carrie calling in from jackson, mississippi. you make less than $50,000 a year. have you seen that change over the last five years? caller: no. actually, we had to take a couple of pay cuts because we
are in michigan, and because of the economy. one of the things i wanted to tell you -- this is kind of a catch 22. if the politicians would focus on bringing jobs to the united competition in the marketplace would force orloyers to pay more, employees would have more of a choice saying, we don't want -- we will not work for x corporation, we will go to white corporation.- y other thing that concerns me is there does not seem to be any kind of safeguard for companies bringing in workers from outside the country under a different status. they can bring them in. i have some good friends that are very capable, and they are
in the technology industry, but they were laid off from their company. before you know it, there were brought in from india and other parts of the world who the companies could pay cheaper. host: let me ask you this, there is the issue of the availability of workers, but in this case, the rule is focused on those who are already employed but working more than 40 hours a week. you said you were retired, right? no, you're not right type. -- retired. sorry. you work more than 40 hours a week and you think that should be compensated at a greater rate chuckle ? was my no, because it
choice. .his is has increased however, because of the regulations that businesses have to pay to comply with, it is taking away from the bottom line and ultimately taking away from what can be paid out. butrk for a larger company, it is not where the quote i think thatats -- is a myth too. host: what industry do you work in? actually, i work in higher education. like i said, not -- myth thatat is the smiis there are all these people making tons of money and the
majority of people are not. i do believe that if you work job, and do your produce, you are rewarded. host: ok. that is our last call to date. that is all for "washington journal." >> "washington journal" continues.we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 . have a good saturday. ♪ [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] >> here on c-span this morning, a hearing on telemarketing law. then, a look at a debate in the house and senate this week on funding to combat