tv Washington Journal CSPAN August 7, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
cost of childcare in the u.s. and karim mezran talks about libya. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: for those who would like to occupy the oval office, a new poll has hillary clinton leading donald trump by eight percentage points. this also blends in some third candidates. the green and libertarian, so they combined to be 12% of the potential vote in the "washington post" poll. this leads to our question -- are you considering a third-party candidate? who is it, why, what are you not seeing in the other folks? tell us your story, your opinion
on the race and whether you are considering a third-party presidential candidate. eastern and central time zones can call (202) 748-8000. if you live out west, it is (202) 748-8001. if not by phone, you can weigh in from social media. --@cspanwjtraitor is our twitter handle. times" has this headline that says "dreams see opportunity amid voter discontent." --y say the boisterous crowd jill stein gazed at her reflection with a look of dumb short list. "can you say that again?" ms. s tein asked. poll," at 6% in a new said her press director.
most presidential candidates would blanch at such a figure this late in the race, but miss stein, 66, is unlike most candidates. she offers an unswervingly progressive platform that includes abolishing student debt, establishing a right to a living wage job, and cutting military spending by at least 50%. she returned not, to editing her speech and picking at a plastic container of berries. that was in the "near times" -- "new york times" today. we interviewed miss stein as part of our newsmakers program. here is a look. [video clip] >> right now, the green party is in fewer than half the states. how many states do yesterday being on the ballot now? >> between 48 and 50.
so those early numbers reflected the deadline of the petition process. those numbers are going up rapidly. we also have active ongoing cases in court p we hope to be on the ballot for perhaps every voter. if not every voter, just about every voter. think the realistic vote is to stand up and build, however car we get, we are that much further ahead for the down ballot races and the ongoing fight for an america and world that works for all of us. the: that was jill stein, green party candidate. how about the libertarians, gary johnson? out"new york times" points a republican congressman is now backing the libertarian presidential candidate. this is a campaign first. this is representative scott rigell of virginia.
rigell, aterview, mr. republican, said he had settled on mr. johnson, the former governor of new mexico," is the best option available." republicanecond congressman to not endorse donald trump. he is retiring at the end of his term. that mr. johnson and his running mate has been seeking to woo disaffected republicans who view mr. trump is acceptable. republicansional back the third-party ticket, it could help mr. johnson gain could ability. we have leslie on the line for our first call from
massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine. are you looking at a third-party candidate? caller: i am not. i am retired navy vet. i am a donald trump supporter. i believe he will do the best for the country. i just do not understand mrs. clinton. where the country is that they do not see the issues she has throughout thels years. as far as a third-party, i am not for mr. johnson. i do not believe we need to be come a marijuana smoking country. i strongly support donald trump. i believe he loves this country, like i love it. i was wrought up on my parents to love and respect this country, and i do. this is the greatest country in the world --
host: let me ask you a question before we let you go. so you have the libertarians and the greens at around 12%. we have seen as high as 15%. what you make of that number in this cycle? caller: probably because of the made. donald trump has he is not a politician. decided he was not a stable candidate. friday evening -- i have seen him speak before one-on-one and was very impressed with him. that is my opinion. host: thank you leslie in massachusetts. we go to ed in georgia. are you with us? caller: yes. before i say what i want about a third-party candidate, i would like to say i think it is a little unfair that i have to spend my money to have a
,elephone to call into c-span but people with obama phones call in, and i have to pay for the obama phones -- host: what is an obama phone? caller: for the last eight years, we have had people calling in with some of the dumbest comments -- host: i understand, calling on the democrat line. keep going. is ir: well, what my point am helping to pay for their comments. they should have to pay for their own phone calls. anyway, as far as third-party, third parties are dangerous. the reason why this country has two parties to begin with is when you are in congress, you have to make a decision of yes, we are for this or know, we are not for it. there is no third choice.
there is no maybe. it is either yes or no. host: let's move onto paul from portland, maine. good morning. caller: good morning. host: are you considering a third-party candidate? caller: actually, i am in a bit of a conundrum. the commentheard from your first caller appeared she said she was a donald trump supporter, then commented on hillary clinton's dishonesty. but what my position is -- which -- but iith -- is that am surprised she is not intelligent enough to see that donald trump, for the most part, is just a con artist, in my opinion. so you have on the republican side a con artist. , youon the democratic side have a dishonest person. .hen you have two other choices
the green party, which is not even on the ballot in half of the states, so, in my opinion, they do not really have a realistic chance of winning. then you have the libertarian party, which, in my opinion, does not really have a realistic chance of winning. -- host: where does that leave you? caller: in a very difficult position. now i am down to choosing between a con artist and a dishonest career politician. "youi say to myself, difficult sucha position to be in." bem saying to myself i will forced to vote for someone i cannot stand, basically. between the two choices.
probably to say i will voting for hillary clinton, as much as it kills me to even say that. host: paul, things for calling. let's try audrey from georgia. are you considering a third-party candidate this year? caller: i am not. i am voting for hillary clinton. i just want to say that people that think donald trump is going to do something for them -- donald trump is all about donald trump. think about it. who wants a president that gets angry because "you are not nice to me"? we stopped doing this kind of stuff and the third grade. crybaby.ump is a big donald trump is out for donald trump. i would not higher donald trump trump to kill mosquitoes for the zika virus. host: thanks for calling.
third-party candidates in a late push for the debate stage. this from "the hill." they report that third-party candidates are racing against a clock to qualify for the presidential debate stage as one of the next phases in september. so on the 26th is the first debate in new york. -- thepaign decision campaigns expect decision on who makes the cut in early september, giving gary johnson and jill stein one month to hit the 15% national polling threshold. toy are in an all out sprint boost their numbers before that deadline. the "hill" report that johnson and green have surpassed one hurdle in that both are routinely included in the polls that will determine who makes the stage after being left out of many polls earlier in the
stigall -- in the cycle. that reaching 50% in five national surveys leading up to the debate remains a steep climb. let's try ellen. caller: are you aware of what an obama phone is? it is a phone given by the obama administration to all people who are low income. it is costing this country millions of dollars. you did not understand his answer. are you there? host: yes. keep going. caller: right. so it is a free phone that he was talking about. secondly, the two people that were talking that they would ite for hillary -- as far as am concerned, she talks like a third grader with all of her lies. in thirdoing that grade. fourthly, i am voting for donald trump, because he is the only one that knows how to ask -- fix
this country. he is a builder. he has the intelligence. this third-party business is off the wall. where did they, from -- come from? host: why off-the-wall? caller: why just now? it seems like a sneaky way to put them in because nobody likes anybody. this whole thing is becoming like a kindergarten conspiracy. host: that was the voice of helen in florida. at the cnnry johnson town hall wednesday. he was asked to explain his comment that hillary clinton was "beholden." let's look at the libertarian party ticket. [video clip] it is just not coincidence that bill clinton and hillary both are making huge amounts of
money with these speaking fees. atre are others that look this, anderson -- i do not want to throw rocks -- but really, it is paid to play. saying big-money donors are beholden to wall street? -- that they are making money off of this. making money off of this as secretary of state. bill goes out and does a $1 million speaking gig. the next day, hillary signs an agreement with the sponsor of that speaking gig. that is not good. that is beholden. it smacks of pay to play. and i think it goes beyond that. to the news, the "morning consult" has this -- line
hillary clinton clutch is a 9% lead over rival donald trump. almost half of registered voters said they would choose clinton over trump. that was in "the morning consult." they are saying 18% of folks do not have an opinion. it does not look like it included the independent candidates. we are talking about third-party candidates this morning and asking if you are considering a third-party candidate this year. if so, tell us why. jeff, moderate -- monterey, california, you are up next. caller: hello. i want to say a vote for donald trump, in my opinion, would be a vote to live in 1692, salem, massachusetts. go third-party. host: who do you like? caller: i like gary johnson. host: why? caller: because he is
independent. host: what particular stance has he taken or things that he said -- what appeals to you most? you said you like that he is independent, but what issues are you watching out for? yes, he is independent. he is willing to consider legalization of marijuana, which i think is a positive move. host: why is that positive? because it is progressive, in my opinion. host: anything in the domestic-fiscal area, foreign policy, any particular points you has made that caught your attention? caller: yes. he is pro-choice. host: anything else you want to say about the libertarian ticket? caller: i think it is a step in the right direction. host: let's hear from jonathan in austin, texas. caller: good morning.
i think having an independent choice is a great option. part of the problem in this country is we do not have enough choices. now, you have these two horrible candidates. every year, it seems like we are in between choosing which is the worst option. having gary johnson -- i did watch the town hall. drawn todid not feel him, i felt that in this country, we need more choices. i do not know how anyone is calling and saying having a third choice is a bad option. if you watched the town hall, one of the things that was disappointing is that while i was starting to think libertarian -- you have gary annson, who is not really enticing personality. to become president of the united states, you need to be more charismatic.
his vice president and running mate had better answers and was more interesting. is onet thing i will say of the things i have problems with in libertarians is we do not have the education. they need to start educating the people out there about their libertarian movement. if you ask most people about their views in this country, most people are liberal when it comes to social issues and conservative when it comes to financial issues. that is what a lot of libertarians stand for. the problem is people do not understand. host: do you see yourself voting for the libertarian ticket? caller: it is difficult. think,f the issues, i with the current president is while i did not vote for obama -- he is so far left that he cannot really get anything done.
beenf the reasons i have leaning towards clinton is while she is pretty far left, she does have moderate views to her. thingsld see some getting accomplished. i think there is a lot of compromise that has to happen in congress and government to actually pass laws and for congress to be made the right way, beyond executive power. i do not think gary johnson will have the pool he needs to get the pull he needs to get things done in the white house. host: all right, thanks. to facebook. clinton says the democrats and republicans are both accountable. mary writes a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for hillary. charlotte says no, and others should take into account that if the third-party voting is large enough that no candidate
receives the required electoral college count, the decision as to who will be president will be made by the u.s. house of representatives and the vice president chosen by the u.s. senate. to's see what julius has say. he is in greensboro, north carolina. caller: good morning. i will not be voting for a third party. i will have to go with the same - the sane and insane. trump, if people do not know it, he has bipolar. they will find out he has bipolar in a few days, because he is really insane. host: moving on to robert, brooklyn, new york. good morning. are you there? caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i will vote for jill stein and the green party. host: how come?
caller: first, jill stein is as close as you can get for voting for bernie sanders. i think we need a third party. the democrats are old rock, stock, and darrell with wall street and have billionaire clients, just as republicans are. there is not much difference between them. calling pay for those who are interested in jill stein, she will be on the network a couple of times to the first will be at 10:00 eastern time you then six a clock p.m. -- then at 6:00 p.m. as part of our "newsmakers" program. at 9:00, we will show you her speech and the speech from her running mate as they accepted the green party nomination in houston. with jill episodes
stein. and we will look forward to putting on gary johnson as well. we will let you know when. let's go to tom in mesa, arizona. caller: good morning. i am a first-time voter. i tend democrat but i would probably go republican if the rnc and gop would still be looking to stop trump. i am surprised they are not considering robert gates. host: how old are you? caller: 66. host: and this is your first time voting? caller: yes. host: how come? caller: just have not been really civic minded. host: what is sparking your interest at the age of 66? bit of notte a interested in donald trump.
house allnk bob gates of the credentials. the integrity. the administrative experience. think,is definitely, i could swing an election. host: could you see writing that name in on the ballot? caller: i could. i would rather see him as the republican candidate, though. host: what do you think of this system, having spent decades of eligibility out of the picture? what do you make of the way we elect residents? -- presidents? i am not particularly admirable. i do not like the two party system and how they block voters and independents from voting in the primaries. host: what else would you like to say about the candidates this year? what is going to make you go one
way or the other this november? i would probably stick with hillary. i was really a bernie supporter, but that would be the way i go. host: thank you for calling. michelle is calling from capital heights maryland, just outside d.c. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good morning. caller: i am calling because i was considering a third-party candidate, but i look at the town hall, and those third-party are just as vicious in attacking as donald trump. they are all on attack. and the people that are angry, so angry, are angry at the people they send to washington. they send senators and representatives that light of them -- lie to them.
i was so looking forward to voting for a third-party, but last night, whatever night the town hall was on -- host: the one on cnn. caller: right. they did not say they would build roads and schools, they came with the same lies as trump . together. here that is why we are mad. we are bad because those people that are angry sent the wrong people to washington to represent them. they were lied to. obamacare is still here, they could not a peach -- impeach obama. trump trump said he will do it -- he will not. they are angry at who they sent to washington, not that washington. host: thank you. hang on and watch this piece from the cnn town hall. with gary johnson and bill weld. they talk about how things will be left polarized if they get
elected. [video clip] both sides. i pose the question that if hillary or trump will be elected, things will be as polarized as the other. neither side will get along with the other. what if you elect a couple of former republican governors, two term, reelected, running as libertarians, what if you elect them, calling out both sides? >> how can you ring things together in washington - bring things together in washington? >> i think it would be refreshing to have a party not terribly partisan in the white house? we would hire the smartest people we could find, and the republican party, in the military and party. our proposals would not say "take that, you stupid d party" or "stupid r party."
of theipients information would not feel attacked, so they may be more likely to come to the table. twitter, edward writes "i am considering a third-party candidate, but also know that it is like swimming against the current." has"new york daily news" this piece with ralph nader, who has had his share of residential bids for -- presidential bids for third parties. he says they do not have a chance and that is lousy for democracy. it says in the piece "is this the year for a third-party tenet it?" ralph nader said no. he said this election season made people angry, and if there to tell you to blame, there's only one person to call -- ralph nader.
but he cautioned that libertarian candidate gary johnson or the green party presented in a digital stein are not going to move into the white house. "this is going to be a better year for third parties, but all ," who got is about 3% 2.74% of the popular vote against bush and gore. 3% seems low given that johnson and steiner pulling at 9% and 2%. " polls for third-party candidates are always higher before labor day and then decline. people get cold feet in the voting booth. i was pulling a 5% the day before election day." and we have darren from california, up early. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a little disappointed.
people in ourate country. one caller was talking about obama phones pay it was angry and i understand. do you know, what we need to -- i am considering a third-party, because i have not heard any innovative answers. to me, we have a lot of people i am african-american. whitework that generally folk will not do. and the thing about a minority is if he is not intelligent, he can cut grass and do something else. it does not work that way since i got to this country. wehink we ought to have -- have been living in this country over 300 years, and all you have is a trailer and a dime, we have
to support you. host: you said you are looking at a third-party. anyone in particular? caller: i wish i would hear someone talk about something. -- host: where are you getting most of your information on politics these days? caller: i read books. some americans, all they do is listen to rush limbaugh. -- host: what could a third-party candidate tell you today if you could talk to them and you would say that is it, i would vote for them? caller: education reform. trailer park reform. let's talk about that. host: ok. thank you. greg is on the line from all the marble -- upper marlboro, maryland, also outside d.c.
good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am so upset at the american people. you have people who are totally racist, who do not want to see a black man in the presidency. from day one, republicans vowed they would make obama's term a complete failure. they have been successful at stopping him from doing a lot of things. if you go to the grocery store and want a box of cereal, you have so many to choose from. it is hard for you to choose something that is good for you and will taste good. that is what it is like living in this country. richer andnt to get keep the poor poorer. it is not fair. i will vote for hillary, because i think at least she will be fair.
and they are trying to do so many things to cause her to be indicted after she has already been cleared. come on, man. served juryever duty, that is hard to do. to get 12 people to agree on something is extremely hard. now you try to get everyone in the country to agree on what is right and wrong? rightody knows what is and everybody knows what is wrong. they keep laying these games with one another, because everybody once somebody to do things their way, instead of us coming together as a people and the in one american people, just like we are supposed to be one human family -- host: the voice of greg from maryland. ann is calling from houston. are you considering a third-party? caller: no. host: keep going. who do you like this year? caller: i like to vote for
hillary. you know why? obama terms page she can give any america terms. she is intelligent. i want everybody to look at the country, for instance, not just one person. we will leave this country in the hands of those who will keep it this way or make it better. you do not want to leave this country in the hands of people that will solve them out to russia -- sell them out to russia. candidatellary is the today. people are not happy because she is a women. but i think she will do a good job. she is not even bad in the way i think of her.
she was secretary of state. they did not accept that she made a mistake. i am voting for hillary. asking you if you are considering a third-party candidate. we have heard from several folks who either are or are thinking about it. we will take more of your calls for about 10 more minutes. but to the earlier gentleman caller he wanted to hear more about education, the "seattle times" has a comparison of jill stein and gary johnson. stein wants to abolish student debt and guaranteed tuition free education from preschool through university education. she wants to "protect our public school systems from privatization and increase federal funding for school." johnson believes there is no role for the federal government in education. he would cut the department of education.
they talk about other issues. climate is one. stein calls for a ban on both sides -- pesticides and would transition the country entirely to renewable energy. gary johnson believes that the climate is probably changing and humans are probably contributing. he supports the federal government interest in protecting the environment but believes that should happen by punishing polluters, not intervening in energy markets or through subsidies. larry is on the line now from oregon. hello. caller: yes, i am here. host: good morning. caller: good morning. host: are you considering a third-party candidate? caller: yes, i and pay we have a culture of corruption and forced in d.c. i would like to not vote at all, but i feel responsible. thirdill consider a
party. host: anyone in particular? caller: no. i haven't honed in on anybody. i do have a. what we need at this point is to elect an independent prosecutor. not the attorney general, which has become a political act for whatever political party that seems to be in power in washington dc -- washington, d.c.. they are not serving the country's meets -- needs. to have an independent prosecutor elected and not affiliated with any particular party -- host: we get your point. back to your point about you have not honed in on anybody, what kind of person are you looking for? i would like to see
someone who can act independently. we have many people influencing our candidates. it is real apparent, at this point. trump is acting fairly independent. i like that. but he is not my man. i started with him. it has become very apparent i cannot vote for him. host: would you ever consider giving money to a third-party candidate? caller: i would. i have given money to political candidates in the past. around -- i heard used -- it is like a dumpster fire. it is certainly becoming that i cannot vote for either people. host: where do you go in terms of yourself education, who was out there, what they are saying? what is your process going to
be? caller: i read a lot. i can filter through a lot of the garbage. i am an educated person. involvedy, i have been in political affairs in my past employment -- i am retired now. i can filter through the garbage. and i read a lot in the newspapers and listen to a lot of news. now i am retired and have a lot of spare time to do that. and feel obligated to do it as a voter. and i watch your program, and i am very concerned about the quality of the voters in this country, at this point. i guess maybe i am just getting older. host: all right. thank you for weighing in. back to the "seattle times" piece, if you want to know more about jill stein and gary johnson, they speak about the
economy. it says stein support a $15 minimum wage and regulation of wall street. tax cuts for the poor and middle class, higher taxes for the wealthy. gary johnson advocates for a free market with small government and limited regulation. he favors tax reform that would create a single consumption tax that is the same rate for all goods and purchases. on health care, jill stein favors a single-payer health care system that would essentially give everyone a form of medicare. gary johnson favors fully privatized health care. chartsa today" has this of the history of third-party candidates, the most successful ones. folksparty or independent since world war ii. they talk about the year, the number of votes, and the percentage. in 1948, governor strom thurmond, later senator of south carolina. he got 2.4% of the vote.
1968, george wallace, the american independence party, 13.6% of the vote. don anderson, 1980, independent, 6.6%. remember ross perot, 1992. he got 18.9% of the vote. that was 19 million people that year. he got a .4% the next year as a candidate for the reform party. year ast 8.4% the next a candidate for the reform party. ralph nader got 2.7% of the vote in 2000. matt is calling from tennessee now. caller: good morning. out of all of the years i have been voting, all i have heard is "what we need is a good independent."
there is always a republican or democrat, but they are not 100%. we know someone running on the independent ticket never does good. so therefore, i have always seen him as an independent. he just chose to run on the republican ticket, therefore, he would do better. that is why he had so much trouble with the republicans. independent that is running, they are pretty much just on the ticket just to be there. think that so many due to the trump, fact that he is kind of like an independent. if the media would stay out much, and let them
get their point across, without trying to twist everything, you know, i think that trump would do better, due to the fact that he is pretty much for the people. without the media being in their. host: gary is calling now from las vegas. caller: how are you doing? host: good, how are you? caller: good. host: are you considering a third-party? caller: i have been a republican all my life. was a charter member of the rnc. when donald trump came on, i did not think much of it, because i realized it was more of his ego. he has done everything else in his life. this was his last goal before he was done. and i was looking for candidates or the republican party. opinion, a third-party candidate cannot win the
presidency of the united states. i waited for someone like a rebirth of a ronald reagan. well, we have donald trump now. and hillary, if she won, i do not know if this country would last another four years. i do not know how people could consider voting for her. she has been a cheech, lying. -- a cheat, lying. there are so much stuff going on around her, but people do not care. host: where do you think you are headed now for your vote? you had aknow if third-party candidate, if you have someone like ronald reagan, i would go third party. so the only choice you have a sailor clinton or donald trump. i would have to go with donald trump. host: go ahead and finish up? caller: ok. six months ago, i would have laughed at going with donald
trump. but we do not have a choice. it is donald trump, the end. -- the "washington post" has bernie sanders rebuffing very green party. "i do not know the leadership of the green party, but i respect what they are trying to do" he said at a bloomberg breakfast. think right now -- what is it, 3, 4 months before an election -- you're going to end up having a choice. either hillary clinton is going to become president, or donald trump." so sanders warning his supporters against a third party. there is one more "new york times" piece. it is reverberating in lots of places. the "gop candidates are aiming to escape trump's shadow." they right after a disastrous
week, republican leaders have concluded that donald j. trump is a threat to the party's fortunes." top shot his essay the issue is no longer in doubt. one house republican has are ready started airing an ad or valuing to stand up to mr. trump if he is elected president. others are expected to press similar themes in the weeks ahead. in this election around the country, they are talking about how congressional candidates are trying to get out of mr. trump's shadow. one last call on this question about third-party candidates. thomas in north carolina, good morning. caller: morning. thank you for taking my call. i am -- i have actually thought fort voting third-party
several different elections, back when it was possible. but i know -- i think eventually, it will happen, that we could possibly have a third-party candidate voted in. at the same time, just simply by last eightk to years, with the objection is him the housetionism in and senate, not only will we have to have a third-party presidential candidate, but also we have to change a lot of the seats in both the house and the senate to have anything possibly done. we could vote in a third-party butidate and win, possibly, if there is a dominant of either republican or democrat in both
the house and senate, either or, nothing could get done. your so who do you have eye on, if you are looking independent or third party? theer: actually, probably independent. i like the green party and the independent party, but probably the independent. what i would probably still vote do notnton, because i think it is yet possible for us to vote in a third-party , and also to be effective. the reason i would vote clinton theimply because, for country as a whole, i think we would be better off with a democrat president instead of a republican. because if we do not have changed in the house and senate
with the dominant republican control -- host: got it. thank you for your thoughts. thomas from north carolina and everyone who called in in the first 45 minutes. i am sure we will talk again about third-party candidates. but stick around. we will continue to talk politics. our next guest is betsy mccaughey, former new york lieutenant governor and donald trump supporter, talking about the neatest -- latest news from the donald trump campaign. talked with eric morath from the "wall street journal" on the rising cost of childcare and proposals by presidential candidates to address it. another reminder about our "newsmaker host: program. jill stein, green party presidential candidate will be on. we talked with her friday. here she reacts to president
obama and rates him on his policies. [video clip] >> has obama been a great, good, or bad president? >> according to the conventional view, he has been a great president. in my view, looking at our actual consequences, and i would say in particular the climate crisis is far worse today things to all of the above, which yes, increased renewables but massively increased fossil fuels. theped type line around world. we can thank hillary clinton for that as well. has been aicy disaster. foreign policy has been a continuation of george bush. we continue to have outrageous drone wars and expanding the war on terror and the war for oil, which has been a disaster. on nuclear weapons, the policies of the obama administration, which has continued the policy on his predecessors, both
democratic and republican, have been a disaster. we have a new nuclear arms race, which puts us at great peril. this is who he is. i do not want to criticize the man. this is what his politics is. but i think it is absolutely the wrong politics for the 21st century and this crisis we are facing, which is a pervasive crisis. we need a very new way forward, which we have an incredible opening for now, because the american people are clamoring for a new way forward that puts people, planet, and peace in front of profit. barack obama is representative of the political system driven by the fossil fueled giants and the predatory banks and war profiteers. this is what we get without political system. this is why we need system change, not just a small change around the margins. and our "newsmaker" guest
jill stein, green party presidential nominee. right after this addition of "washington journal," and a replay at 6:00 p.m. joining us now from new york city is at the mccaughey, the former new york lieutenant governor under george and tacky pataki, donald trump supporter, and author of a book called "beating obamacare." good morning. how long have you known donald trump and what do you see in him as someone who could lead the country? have known him for about 20 years, since i was lieutenant governor of new york. reasonpoint out my major for supporting donald trump are his economic policies. this nation is facing, in all likelihood, a serious recession in the year -- in the near future.
business profits have been down five quarters, almost six. the result is growth in this country is now down to a seriously low 1.2%. that is compared with countries like ireland, where it is a present. american's are feeling the impact of this sluggish growth pushing us closer to a real recession. donald trump has a turnaround plan, which he will discuss at the detroit economics club tomorrow. willnaround plan that restore job growth, business investment, which is key to job growth, and real prosperity in the country. host: can you give us an advance look at his plan? we will have his speech tomorrow at noon, by the way. what expect -- what exactly are you expecting to hear from him? elements.re are three
first, a substantive reduction in the business tax rate from 39% to 15%. located inoperations -- corporations located in the united states pay the highest corporate tax rates in the world . nominally, 39%. a corporate tax rate at 12 point 5%. so many companies are leaving the country or establishing operations in other countries. we need to lower the corporate tax rate in order to restore the businesseness of doing in the united states. a second feature of the donald trump plan is a short repatriation holiday, where corporations will be able to move back to the united states some three chilean dollars currently parked -- some $3 trillion currently parked in other countries, because under current law, if it is brought
back to the united states, the companies are hit with punishing leave high corporate tax rates. so this repatriation holiday would reduce that rate to $3ghly 10% and bring back trillion that can be invested in computers, factories, trucks, anything needed to hire more people in the united states. the third aspect of the trump economic plan that i think is so important is deregulation. repealing obamacare and so many other regulations that are smothering businesses, big and small. everyone listening who is ever tried to start a business in the u.s. now knows it is virtually impossible, because there are so many forms to fill out, so many regulations to comply with. it delays the process and adds so much to the cost. while many presidents have been regulations,dding
president obama has been the overall king of regulations. he has added some 600 major regulations, defined as a regulation that has an impact of $100 million or more. nation is literally suffocating under federal regulation. -- candidate donald trump let's hope future president thatd trump --will reduce relation to make a possible for businesses to thrive again. if you are looking for job growth and opportunity for people, you have to also think about it from the employer's point of view. host: numbers on the bottom of your screen for betsy mccaughey, former lieutenant governor of new york and supporter of donald trump and you can delete work in "the new york post," where she is a columnist. and she has written a book obamacare."ing
--the "washington post has the "washington post" has this headline. "donald trump named his economic team -- "donald trump's new team of billionaire advisors could threaten his populist message." what do you think? guest: i do not think that is true. this is not a nation of and the. thise who are not rich -- is not a nation of envy. to have on your economics team not just academics -- and he has some impressive academics like but also people who have done it in the real world, built companies, that is to his credit, not his discredit. host: we want to show a short clip of president obama at a news conference this week, asked by a reporter about donald trump's fitness for the
presidency. we will look at that and get your reaction. [video clip] >> yes, i think the republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. week, and het keeps proving it. the notion that he would attack a gold star family that had made such extraordinary sacrifices on , the factour country that he does not appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in europe, in the middle means that he is woefully unprepared to do this job. host: what is your reaction?
guest: business this as typical -- dismiss this as typical partisan blather. host: anything else? guest: it is obvious he is speaking on behalf of his favorite candidate, hillary clinton. let's get back to the facts. host: that's get back to the calls. danny in virginia, republican line for betsy mccaughey. good morning. caller: good morning. isst of all, ms. mccaughey right about the recession coming. people do not have money to buy anything. we have a big problem coming. free-trade.e to so donald trump is right to the question is, can he actually or put in agreements tariffs or whatever he needs to do? because the agreements are designed to not allow changes to
be made. once they are put in, unless you have unanimous consent from also met torres, you cannot revoke them. that is my question. ,hank -- from all signatories you cannot revoke them. that is my question. thank you. to look atll have those treaties. obviously, treaty power lies with the senate, not just the president. it is regrettable that under president obama, that was usurped. president obama should never have been able to reach an agreement with iran without the advice and consent of the senate. let's hope donald trump -- and i respect theill -- nine states constitution and the allocation of powers among the branches. constitutional history for many years. i have a phd in constitutional
history. nothing host: to richard, lake placid, florida, independent caller. good morning, richard. rip arrested: yes, good morning. guest: good morning, richard. richard: good morning, ms. mclean. basically what we have in washington is one party. and the republicans and the democrats will come together to keep the power and the control of the people. and we saw that, we saw an example that with boehner and the republicans took over the house and the senate, that they campaigned on eliminating obamacare which they did not do. and open borders, they were going to get control of the borders and close them down and protect the u.s. jobs to the
people which they did not do. they absolutely have done nothing. everything in the republican party. we need an independent to get away from the total control. the people now are being used as i'm not going to say slaves but close to it. guest:: i'm really glad you're calling about this, richard. caller: thank you. guest: i believe one of the reasons donald trump swept the republican primaries, knocking down 16 professional politicians who were up on the stage with him is that he speaks very candidly, and it was refreshing to the people and it gave the public some hope that the nominee for president would actually listen to them and their concerns. and one of the reasons that i'm a trump supporter is that i want to see an outsider in the white house. i was actually disappointed this week when donald trump
vowed to party pressure and endorse john mccain and kelly ayotte and some of the republicans in their primary contest. we need to challenge more people to challenge the go along to get along career politicians in washington in both parties. host: that being said, a lot of writeups of it being a rough period for donald trump recently, the things he has said or continues to say, there are old numbers out there and talk of a, quote, intervention, whatever that exactly might mean. what's your sense of the state of the donald trump campaign at this point? guest:: i looked at the most recent poll, the nbc/"wall street journal" poll which was completed on august 3. t was completed after the kahn dustup, after both conventions, and it's true that mrs. clinton has pulled ahead somewhat in several states and nationally
but let me point out that even that poll shows that only 22% of likely voters trust mrs. clinton. the poll also shows that a majority of the voters questioned believe that donald trump will do a better job with the economy and a better job on crime and maintaining law and order and national security within the united states. those are two key issues. host: there is a tweet from karen on the economy point that says ms. mccoy, please comment on leading economists that trump's plans would substantially increase the debt. do you see it that way? do you agree with that? guest: the major architects of trump's plan are surprise siders, four of whom have substantial experience from the reagan years and the same warnings were issued in the reagan years, that cutting taxes would increase the debt. but the fact is that what we
have learned is that when you slash corporate taxes, you increase economic activity which is desperately needed if this country. we're languishing along at 1.2% growth, far below what it should be and far below the 4.5% growth during the reagan recovery and the 5.4% growth during the kennedy recovery. both of those presidents, j.f.k. in the democratic party, ronald reagan for the republican party, slashed corporate taxes and brought in tremendous extra revenue because of increased business activity. and that is exactly what will happen again. host: before we get back to calls, i'll point out that mr. trump's team of economists and advisors does not include any women. your reaction there? guest: i thought that was really meaningless. i don't look at people's decree
contentionals -- credentials based on their gender. i thought it was a well put together team. host: let's go to ron. thanks for waiting. caller: thank you, good morning, betsy. guest: good morning, ron. caller: i have two points. one, you said the tax rate is 35% but we know the rich people have every deduction in the world because mr. romney only pays effective tax rate of 12%. that means the rich have every loophole in the world to take and bring it down, including corporate taxes that you just spoke about. so if we would just have the 15% that you talked about and eliminate every single tax loophole that we have, we'd have it even. and the other point is, mr.
trump has not released his taxes and we would like to see them. so we know exactly what he is doing. because he outsources everything that he makes except the hats, just the hats. host: ron, thanks for calling. guest: hats off to you for that question. let me address it because i think you raised several important issues. let's start with what i call the tax shames. this is a part of almost every election now, tax shaming. hat it is, a shaming of high earning people who, through perfectly legal deductions, like deducting property taxes, deducting appreciation allowances, etc., reduce their tax liability from the highest rate to something lower. it was really a feeding frenzy against mitt romney when he released his taxes. it's a major reason that mayor mike bloomberg, another very
successful businessman who ran for mayor three times in new york, did not release his taxes. he refused to release how much he paid or what his final tax rate was. he handed reporters for a few minutes a highly redacted tax form. that is, most of the numbers were crossed out. and he did because he didn't want to be a victim of that tax shaming. to me i've found it really surd the notion that successful people should pay more than the law requires them to pay, that somehow paying more than uncle sam tells you to pay makes you a better person. nobody i know pays more taxes than the law requires them to pay. so if you have a grievance with the law, we should change the laws and in fact donald trump has proposed tremendously simplifying tax law for individuals so that most of us would be able to file our taxes
on just a simple piece of paper and a lot of those, quote, loopholes you referred to would be gone. so i agree with your spirit that we need a simpler, fairer tax code. i don't agree with the strategy of tax shaming people who use the law or abide by the law who file a perfectly legal tax return and then are dragged across the carpet and embarrassed for paying something less than people thinks they ought to pay. host: you can read more about that opinion in "the new york post." here's the headline to betsy mccoy's piece, the tax shaming trap, new yorkpost.com is the place to read her current column. anthony is calling from new york city, staten island. guest: i'd like to point out one more thing before we go on. host: sure. guest: although donald trump hasn't released his tax return and i would advise him not to because otherwise if he did, the entire rest of the 96 days or so until this election would
be taken up in a similar feeding frenzy with reporters picking up every single line in his tax return even if he's complied with every letter of the law, which i assume he has. but here's what we do know about both these major candidates, hillary clinton and donald trump. they've both filed financial disclosures, and i've looked at them very carefully. mrs. clinton's 11 pages on which she lists her sources of income. it's all paid speaking engagements and royalties from books she's written about herself. so we can say 11 pages, mrs. clinton's line of work is self-promotion. the blabber. then we look at donald trump's financial discussion form, 104 pages on which he lists 185 profit making ventures, real estate, commercial buildings,
residential buildings, golf courses, money making ventures all over the world. and in addition, substantial management fees, he earns managing other people's properties because he's so good at it. i looked at that and thought, hmm, what should americans pick, the blabber or the builder? and considering the very serious condition of our economy, it seems to me we are better off picking someone who knows how to run businesses, has an economic plan to restore growth in this country rather than somebody who just talks for a living. host: all right. let's get that call in from staten island, republican named anthony. anthony, thank you for waiting, you're on with betsy mccaughey. caller: let me get to my points quickly. one of the reasons i'm supporting donald trump is not just because he just understands the economy and the business but because he understands the economy and the
business in depth. mr. obama wants me to go to school and upgrade my degree and wants me to get certificates and i have been in business in information technology for almost 15 years and i have a degree in computer science. and i live in new york city and i cannot get a job for over a year. my last position was replaced by someone who has an entry level position. and the company i was working for with headquarters in germany, has spent a lot of time on getting in people with h 1 v 1 visa for the traction of the time they could spend on bringing somebody who has a u.s. citizenship, somebody locally. never two, the war has been -- we've never been directly in a war with russia but we've been in war with germany and japan and the middle east, anywhere else.
nd the cold war is over. if we become friends with russia, then there's no nato. nato never protected us. nato never fought terrorism. and if there is no need for nato, then we have just saved a billion dollars. now, hillary has been running for the office for the past 30 years. she has had opportunities to make the changes with the reset buttons and relationships. guest: reset button, remember hat. host: anthony, you still here? caller: i'm still here. host:ing anything you want to wrap up with before we move on? caller: one last point. when i actually applied for some jobs like bank of america, which are local companies, or foreign companies like credit
swiss or deutsche bank, you know the swons i get? the company is restructuring, so we'll get back to you at some point. guest: i want to address anthony's call because so many people are having this experience and it's outrageous. let me compare what i've already said about donald trump's economic proposal, and this is a man who knows how to create jobs. he has the experience running companies to know what punishing corporate tax rates and suffocating regulations do to business investment. and as i mentioned before, business investment has been steadily declining in this country. if companies don't invest, they don't buy a new truck they canada hire a driver and if they don't invest in more computers they can't hire people to work in their officeses. business investment is key to economic growth and increases in productivity. so here we have hillary
clinton's economic plan. i urge you to go up on her website and take a look at it. it is called the fair growth plan. and the phrase economic growth never appears in her plan. it's all about redistributing the current level of income among other people. and secondly, she has such a list of regulations she wants to impose on the economy, new rules about who works heart time or full time about who can arn a bonus, gender and racial preferences from college on through job creation. again and again, more and more regulations on business. even regulations on what kind of investments businesses can make. she requires that they be, quote, farsighted as if uncle sam would know that. the result is that uncle sam, the federal government, is going to be in every boardroom looking over every manager's
shoulder. it should send fear into the hearts of every business owner or manager. that is going to kill this economy and anthony has it just right. host: let's hear from hillary clinton this past friday talking about economic issues. ms. clinton: i really believe the core of his support -- i'm not going to speak for everyone who supports him because i think there have been some quite distressing statements coming out of his rallies and his supporters and who has aligned themselves with him. but i think the core of his support really centers on the disappointment in the economy that so many americans feel. and what i have been saying is, you know, i want to bring this country together. i think we have three overarching goals. we need more economic opportunity. we need to protect our national security, and we've got to work
towards american unity. so i have been trying to understand what it is that has driven people to support trump. and i've met with some people. i have listened to them. and so many of them are looking for an explanation as to why they lost the job they had for 18 years when the factory closed and nobody cared about them. what they're going to do when their whole life was spent mining coal and they made $80,000 a year and barely can find a job making minimum wage, why the centers of so many old industrial towns in america are hallowed out and people are turning to opiates and heroin. the list goes on. and that's what i've heard. recognize we have to
that of course some of the appeal is citizen phobic -- xenophobic and racist and massagenistic. we have to acknowledge that. let's not lose sight of the real pain that many americans are feeling because the economy has left them behind. st: your reaction, betsy mccaughey. guest: that response is hypocritical. she's warned she's closing down the coal mines and she's turned her back on those who make their living in fossil fuel. she's taken a stand against tracking. i personally know how destructive this is as a former lieutenant governor of new york state. tracking would bring so many jobs and so much prosperity to the southern tier of new york
state as it has to neighbors pennsylvania. and so when she talks about her sympathy for the coal miners, those coal miners know she is their number one enemy. donald trump on the other hand, and he'll reiterate this in his speech at the detroit economics club tomorrow, has pledged to revitalize all aspects of the energy industry in the united states, not just green energy but fossil fuel energy as well. we can produce our own oil, our own coal, our own natural gas. we can become energy independent and at the same time put so many more people back to work. so hillary clinton is at the least a johnny-come-lately and more likely a hypocrite when she pledges jobs for coal miners. host: donald trump's speech around noon time eastern time
we'll have live on c-span and tomorrow night in primetime. once it happens, of course, you can watch it any time you want at c-span.org. next call for betsy mccaughey former lieutenant governor is lisa, independent. caller: betsy, thank for you coming out in defense of donald trump. to me it's a vote for national ism and a vote for hillary is for international bankers. i don't understand why people don't get that. they're demonizing them so badly and it's just like hillary sold uranium to the russians and the media only ails as if he's theking them traitor. that's all i have to say. also, the destruction of europe now by the muslim immigration is coming here and people don't even see it on tv.
host: thanks, lisa. guest: i sympathize with your call. i think you raise good points. host: in getting ready for the segment we found this headline, g.o.p. mccoy said this election is a war between good and evil. what were you saying here, betsy? guest: that was when i gave a speech in cleveland at the g.o.p. convention. i was actually talking about the struggle within the state of connecticut. connecticut is one of the most heavily taxed states in the union. the democratic party has literally had a chokehold on politics in connecticut for many, many years. they've driven out families and businesses by taxing them to death. they've driven down property values. they've destroyed economic opportunity in the state, and i was explaining to the delegates in connecticut that with donald trump at the top of the ticket, this is an enormous opportunity
for people in connecticut to really rally support for economic growth. not just at the top of the ticket but all the way down the ticket in an effort to turn connecticut into a red state, a republican state. if you look at the 34 states in the united states with republican governors, you will see that they have higher economic growth, they are more friendly to fossil fuel development, they have much lower business regulations, and much bigger job opportunities, and people are voting with their feet to live in those states. texas, florida, other states where you can go and work and the government doesn't take away everything you have in taxes at the end of the year. host: to david, king george, virginia, republican caller for betsy mccaug, ey. caller: good morning. guest: good morning, david. caller: good morning.
i think the republican party actually needs to take a good look at themselves in the mirror. first of all, it was us, the republicans, who crashed the economy. and it was us the republicans who refused to raise the debt ceiling and caused us economic growth. it was us the republicans who shut down the government. and now it's us who put up a candidate who stood on the national stage and said he's going to go out and kill women and children. now, any true american no matter if you're republican, democrat or independent, any true american that would have a low hat has standings that represent us is crazy. and i encourage every republican that is a true american that do not believe a man can get on a stage of the most powerful military in the world and saying he's going out and killing women and children. we need to think about that.
have a good morning. host: betsy mccaughey. guest: i believe he has his facts wrong and thank him for calling and glad he's paying attention to the political process but don't think it's a fair representation of the republican party or the current candidate. host: you of course have a background in health policy, what are your thoughts on the status of the health care law and what mr. trump has said about replacing it? guest: obamacare is currently collapsing. if you've seen the current headlines. it's in a death spiral. many of the major insurers say they're probably headed for the exits in 2016 and no longer will be offering the obamacare plans on the exchanges around the country. and as you can see, even in the current year, the premiums are scheduled to go up as much as 20% or more in many states including my state or the state where i was lieutenant
governor. new york state. and why is it collapsing? well, it was a poor design encumbered with tremendous regulations that prevented people from buying the kind of insurance they really wanted. so let me tell you what i would do, and i believe this is consistent with donald trump's approach. number one, and i'm going to reach down to get obamacare because i brought it with me. next time around, congress should keep it short. e don't want another 2,572 -page obamacare style bill that no one in congress reads. in washington when they say they want comprehensive health reform or comprehensive anything, comprehensive is simply their synonym for unread. give us a series of short bills that members of congress will actually read before passing it. when i first saw obamacare here
, i thought of something that james madison said in federalist 62. he warned congress against ever passing laws, so voluminous, that was his word, so voluminous that no one will read it or so frequently change it that a reasonable person doesn't know what the law is. that is obamacare to a tee. so let's not make that mistake again. and there are several other -- go ahead and finish up. guest: there are several other painful lessons the american public has learned from obamacare that must not be repeated. number who twrks whatever congress passes congress must live by, no special subsidies for members of congress so that their health plan is, quote, affordable when the rest of us don't have truly affordable health plans. number three, no one size fits
ll required benefits plan. the fact is washington doesn't know what kind of health insurance everyone wants and no reason to require 50-year-old people to have pregnancy coverage or the family with no children to have pediatric coverage. that's what obamacare does and pushed the cost way beyond what many people can afford. really our, and this is key, the main reason obamacare is collapsing. do not require everyone to pay the same for their health plan. right now under obamacare, people with serious chronic conditions, serious health problems are charged the same as some young healthy person who has virtually no health problems at all. now, of course we have to look out for the person with the
serious health problems and subsidize the payment of their premium in some other way. but this current one price for everyone health insurance concept is like telling people well, you can feed a great dane and a chihuahua on the same budget. it's not possible. 5% of the people in this country with chronic serious illnesses consume 50% of the health care. those are the people who have signed up for obamacare and that is the reason that the premiums are going up, up, up every year. more and more of the healthy people are dropping out when they see the cost of this insurance. so those are four things. and finally, there's another key here. do not pass health reform and pay for it on the backs of seniors. obamacare, over half the cost of obamacare was paid for by cuts to medicare.
$716 billion in future medicare spending canceled and moved over to pay for obamacare. and seniors can already see the impact. their doctors are paying less. it's harder to find a doctor willing to take you on as a new medicare patient. hospital payments have been slashed and nurses are working harder on the floor. you push that call button and wait longer. seniors are now trapped in the emergency room under something called observation care. and when they leave the emergency room, they're handed a whopping big bill because they never were officially admitted to the hospital. there are more and more reasons why seniors are seeing the impact, a very punishing, dangerous impact of obamacare on them. we can't do that again. host: a couple of calls before we wrap up. democratic line.
billy, go ahead. caller: hi, i have two questions -- two comments. one is that i'm from indianapolis and donald trump talks about how kerry took his business and took it over to mexico but then outsourced all his jobs to other countries. and number two is that you want to put him in and he has no political background at all, period. so what is there to do about it? guest: let me address the second question first because it's a really important question. you're suggesting that only someone with a lot of experience in politics should run for president. but clearly a majority of the republican primary voters disagree with you. we are tired of the go along to get along professional politician class. and i'll tell you one big reason. the republicans in washington, just like the democrats, have ignored the urgency of revitalizing our economy. they've been in washington now
for several years watching growth get slower and slower and slower. under the obama administration's last seven years, growth has been under 2% . in the 20th century it was routinely 3.5%. we can't support our families and offer real opportunity to our children and grandchildren when growth is so low, under 2%. and yet the congressional budget office is predicting under the obama administration's policies, it will continue to be that anemic 2% more or less level into the indefinite future. so we need a businessperson in the white house who will restore economic growth and get this congress working again on economic issues. it's the number one issue facing this country. it's the need for growth. host: todd, north carolina, is our next caller -- david from todd, north carolina, independent caller.
hey, todd. caller: hello. host: you're calling from a town called todd in north carolina and your name is david? caller: that's correct. host: thank you, sir. comboip hello, david. caller: hello. two things. c-span, we need a lot more debates this season as we finalize this election. host: you mean presidential debates? caller: yes, more frequent. and for the caller, i'm wanting to know about bailouts and seeing how she doesn't agree with the current system, what about having to pander to third parties like insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies through patent laws and all this? guest: i have to tell you i'm very, very disappointed with the insurance industry. they definitely sold out the american public when they went along with obamacare. and if you look carefully at what's happened, obamacare passed a law requiring that all
of us buy the insurance industry's product, and secondly included in that big fat law i held up a moment ago, provisions that not only reward the insurance company by forcing us to buy their product, but actually hand them large amounts of money at the end of the year to offset any losses they incur by selling those products. so i would agree with you that this particular law has been a total giveaway, a total bailout to the health insurance industry and should not be repeated. host: steven is on the line from everett, massachusetts. steven on the republican call, hi there. >> very thankful you took my call and i appreciate it. just a quick thing. i was wondering, betsy, i can't pronounce your last name. uest: mccaughey. caller: if you can answer
something for me. i'm disabled and the last raise i got was about maybe 4 1/2 years ago. now hold on. so what bothers me is i hear everybody wanting $15 an hour to work at mcdonald's. everyone wants a raise, everybody wants this, everybody wants that. and i'm a political junkie. i started watching this when h.w. bush went into kuwait. that's how long i've been watching news. and the last phrase i got was four years ago. and i'm in the state of massachusetts. i didn't even get a raise because i do get food stamps. and what happened was i got a $15 raise and then they took $22 out of my food stamps. and then you have to understand is the food goes up, the rent goes up. everybody wants their money and are getting it.
i didn't even get a raise. so how come democrats or republicans or independents or the third parties, how come no one is saying anything about people like me? and i would appreciate it if you could explain that to me and thank you very much for your time. and one more thing. finally there's a donald trump supporter on c-span. thank you. guest: i'm sure i won't be the last donald trump supporter on c-span. there are many, many donald trump supporters. and let me point out that what you're experiencing, no increase in your revenue, your income and yet you're seeing prices go up. that's what almost all working people are experiencing as well. the fact is the average worker hasn't gotten a raise since about 2000 because in real dollar terms, the economy has been so flat, and that's why, never mind the call for minimum wage hikes, most people don't earn the minimum wage but whatever they're earning or
getting revenue the way you do, they're not getting an increase and that's why we have to jump-start this economy. and let me close by pointing out that moody's analytics has just issued a report on the two candidates' economic plans and they warned unambiguously that hillary clinton's plan will not promote any increase at all in private sector business nvestment. that means you cannot expect any improvement in job opportunities in the private sector if there's no increase in business investment. no company can hire another driver until they buy another truck is the simplist example. if you want to see an increase in economic activity in this country, real job growth, you need to support a candidate who knows how to create jobs, not he blabber, the builder. host: betsy mccaughey, it
author of "beating obamacare" senior fellow at hudson institute. guest: currently. i'm at the london center for policy research. host: thank for you adding that bio point in. we appreciate it. we have under an hour and a half left in the sunday edition of "washington journal." coming up "wall street journal" economic reporter eric moraf will join us to talk about the rising cost of childcare and some proposals out there to address it. and later on we'll talk with karim to talk about isis increasing strong hold in libya and what might be getting done bout that. we go to michigan to explore the history and talk to local nonfiction authors coming up at 2:00 plm on american history tv
on c-span 3. all the programs from the city will air together. here's a bit of the visit to the train depot where thomas edson worked and already the inventions he was creating at the age of 12. >> the 20th century would look so different without edson and the light bulb and the phonograph and the motion picture. these are ordinary common things we take for granted but all came from his brain and his brain came from port huron. he arrived at 7 years old and was born in 1847. and he started working here in 1859. the train station we're at was built in 1858 so it was a brand-new station for the grand trunk railroad and got the job as news butcher at age 12. we're on a restored train car from about 1889 and it's used to represent the train car thomas edson rode daily as a 12-year-old boy to detroit. he was a news butcher, butcher
meaning peddler kind of thing. he would have a basket of a big leather strap around and walk up and down the aisles of the train car selling fruit, candy, probably cigars, newspapers, that was his job. he'd arrive here at the depot at 7:00 in the morning and ride in detroit, ride 8:00 or 9:00 at night and spend his time selling things to passengers and we have a re-creation of his little chemical laboratory and printing equipment where he was the first person that we know of to print a newspaper on a moving train. he had access to the latest news through the telegraph agents at the train offices, and you know, he would get that news hot off the presses so to speak. host: joining us now is eric
morath, economy reporter at "the wall street journal." thank you for joining us this morning. i wanted to talk about childcare costs. you wrote this piece earlier this summer. the headlines said "soaring childcare costs are squeezing families." what's the current situation with childcare costs, what does it take, how much does it cost these days? guest: to send your child to what we call center based care, a daycare or preschool, it easily can be $300 or more a week. the cost is rising more rapidly by inflation considerably, almost twice as fast and somewhat to be expected. we've seen the unemployment rate fall and more people have jobs and of course that increases demand for childcare and when you increase demand, the sellers of that product have some ability to raise prices but that's a bit of a double-whammy for families, ok, you get another job seeking to free up income but may need to set aside $300 to $400 a week to pay for childcare and doesn't make that new job sound enticing.
host: what goes in the cost of childcare these days? guest: primarily it's a labor driven cost and not to say childcare workers are making a lot of money. in fact, taking care of animals as a doggie daycare pays almost about the same as childcare. the key is that there's restrictions in terms of how many children can be per adult, for very young children, those less than a year, many states, it's three or four babies per caretaker, so obviously that's pretty expensive. then in cities, the rental costs are more expensive than maybe more rural areas and especially a place like washington or new york, there's just limited spaces where you can have the type of space you need for childcare and that can help raise the cost as well. host: one of the other headlines that drew our attention was earlier this year, a list of states where daycare actually costs more than college. go into this if you can. guest: sure.
i think that explains some of what you're facing. the cost to send your child to a 4-year-old preschool in about half the states, more expensive than going to an in-state tuition at public college. that was a stunning number but puts it in perspective. when you go to college, people think about taking loans and jobs and obviously you can't send your 4-year-old to work that part-time job with the cost on the parents and demonstrates how expensive this burdenen is for some families. host: we'll point out we have separate phone lines for working parents and all others in this segment for eric morath of "wall street journal." if you're a working parent we want to hear from you and hear your situation and if you want o get into finances it's fine, 202-748-8000 for working parents and for others 202-748-8001. how much has the prices risen
since the recession in 2008-2009? guest: trending at about double the pace of overall inflation. in fact, you look further, the total cost of raising a child and adjusting for inflation increased by $20,000 from a child born in 2003 comparing it to a child born in 2013. it's an extra couple thousand a year and the main drivers of that are two things, childcare and health care. host: there's a glaring figure, working parents, the cost to raise a child born in 2013 from birth to age 18 is $245,340. now, that just covers the basics, though, right? guest: that's just clothing, school, feeding, and that's the basics. probably above the cost of an average home in america. host: doesn't include college either. guest: no, up to 18 and doesn't
include your's child college costs. host: as we look at these figures, put it in context for us in terms of just the average family's budget and the way it can go about its business with these costs. and on a larger economic scale nationally. guest: sure. when you're talking on these childcare costs it's not unusual for a middle class family to talk about 20% of their income is going towards childcare costs. if you think an average family might have 30% of their costs go to housing, well, that's half their income attributed just on those two things especially in higher rent areas. so that shows that even as we have this expanding and recovering economy, people that have young children, they're still feeling a bit of a pinch and can make them feel less optimistic even if you have two parents working and even if they have a home, things attributed to having a solid economic status, the high cost of childcare at least until the
children are in kindergarten is something that really can say hey, we don't have the money to take vacation, buy extra clothes and go to a restaurant. without that spending it limits how much you can pass their incomes on to the rest of the economy. host: who is doing what? let's start with the folks behind us on capitol hill and then the presidential candidates. guest: sure. well, on capitol hill, we haven't seen a lot of specific proposals recently on this subject. you know, just in general, we've been in a time period where we haven't seen a lot of new spending programs. we have a child tax credit within the current framework. there has been some talk by presidential candidates trying to expand that, presidential candidates in the primary, i should be specific about. that's one way they help families and the other is the earned income tax credit. and there's been talk on both sides of the aisle trying to expand that. if you have a job and you're working and especially if you have children, that you can
receive a larger credit, that's another thing that's been discussed on capitol hill. host: and the presidential candidates? guest: hillary clinton had a specific proposal to limit the cost of childcare to 10% of your income. the average cost of childcare in 41 states is about 10% of your income so this would cover a lot of people but there has been a few details in exactly how to pay for that. as i was telling you, 300 to $400 a week can easily be $14,000 per child. that's a huge subsidy. as far as the trump campaign. his daughter when she spoke at the convention talked about addressing this issue. and tied it into the wage gap we see between men and women. this is an important source of that. if women choose to -- disproportionately choose to stay home with their children either by their own choice or
because they look at the economics and it doesn't make sense to continue to work, maybe a lower wage job, when they return to the work force they have that much less experience or they didn't have that opportunity to get a promotion or they decide that they needed to -- being a new parent myself you have the tough choice, at 5:00 you go to the soccer game or do you have to stay at work? so those are all difficult decisions and she talked about addressing this childcare issue as a way to look at the gender wage gap. we haven't seen a specific proposal from the candidate himself on what he would do about childcare costs. host: with all that background, let's go to cleveland for our first call. is it tijuana? caller: correct. host: tell us your situation or ask a question or make a comment, please, go ahead. caller: my question is, i was under the impression that a lot of people who weren't in the position thankfully to receive government assistance were
being priced out of this because there are, you know, for a good reason parents who can't afford childcare so the government -- the amount the government is paying probably exceeds what regular working folks can pay and that was my impression that that's why it was so high but listening to the caller, maybe i'm not correct. so i'll take your call. i love your show. thank you. guest: thank you for your comment. there are certainly a lot of people that are priced out of childcare. that's correct. you know, a lot of people feel they need to move closer to family members or they look for some sort of alternative. so the numbers that i'm talking about, $300 or $400 a week, that's for center based childcare. think of spending -- sending your child to preschool. there's a lot of childcare options, a babysitter, grandma, maybe a neighbor down the street or an informal arrangement. those can be more affordable and there's concerns about do
they have the same sort of positive development for a child's education, are they regulated for safety in the same way? but certainly those are alternatives that many families look at. host: another working parent on the line, joe from amsterdam, new york. thanks for calling, joe. caller: hi. thanks for c-span. my main question is what is the republican plan -- please be specific, for dealing with childcare and the rising cost of tuition? i heard a lot of platitudes but not heard any details at all and i'd be really interested in hearing them. i'll be happy to take my answer off the air. please give me some specifics, though. host: when you say "republican" are you talking about donald trump or congress or both? i think we lost him. guest: you know, i'm sorry to say, joe, there has been specific plan from the republican candidate donald trump on how to address childcare costs. i've not seen it and certainly
when i do, i'll be sure to report that in "the wall street journal." as far as other republicans, i know that senator rubio, when he was running for president, he did speak about looking at expanding current part of our tax code, the child tax credit where you receive a certain -- i believe it's deductions per child to increase that so as to help working families and that's a republican who had a specific plan in this area. host: how long has the specific child tax credit been around. it's been around probably long nough. guest: some states have the child tax credit. some states help to encourage employers to help with some of these costs. in some states some area states have had leadership on is
whether they have universal 4-year-old preschool. many states, of course, kinder fwarten starts at 5 years old but some have taken the step to say in our public schools let's offer three or 4-year-olds and that's an opportunity to get your child into care at a lower cost or no cost compared to waiting all the way to when they're 5. host: is any part of childcare tax deductible? guest: there is sort of like health savings accounts. many employers offer the opportunity to set aside, i believe it's up to $5,000 a year from your income but tax free and then you can use that to pay for childcare. host: eva from albany, georgia. good morning to you. caller: good morning. this is an important topic. this capsulizes what is going to be the issues, kind of the family issues that we are acing in the nation.
host: i think we lost her. are you still there? try to call back if you can. let's hear from teresa in the meantime. eresa? i can't hear teresa. let's -- it should be teresa from the bronx. caller: hi, yes. host: go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: you bet. caller: i received a childcare subsidy, my son is 20 now, so when i became a single mom, i tried to get back to the work force and childcare definitely was a problem. i got the subsidy and helped me move forward in my career. i'm basically conservative but do believe the programs have helped and for that reason i do upport them.
guest: you bring up a very good point. got a lot of feedback as you might imagine and got an lot of calls on this. a lot of people have said why should this be a government handout but i think teresa is a great example of the argument that maybe hillary clinton's mothers would make on this topic which is well, this woman was able to go to work and get a job and the subsidy that was paid to her to have childcare was probably less than maybe other costs that would have been on the system had she been unable to find work because of the childcare situation. host: how does paying for childcare in a increasing environment affect folks' ability to do other things? it might be obvious but go into it a bit, their ability to save for college or retirement. put the picture together. guest: in my story i spoke to a family not far from kensington, maryland and by all accounts
would be your typical middle class family, two parents, two children and they said that they really are having a hard time finding the money to take a vacation, you know, talked to me about their television and you know how it was shorting out and how they felt they needed a new one but didn't really have the cash on hand. and i'm talking about two working professionals, not someone at mcdonald's. people that have pretty decent jobs, but it was just, you know, they saw a majority of their paychecks were gone after childcare and housing costs. so you know, think how that filters through to the economy. if that family can't go out to dinner friday night, then that's a waitress or waiter that doesn't have pay and restaurant owner that doesn't have pay and does that limit their ability to go and spend? and there's a ripple effect through the economy. host: another working parent,
hi, steve. caller: hi. i just wanted to kind of make a comment and possibly a question. when you become a parent, you know, the pregnancy is not expected. i think you would anticipate you'd have to make some professional sacrifices in your career. and i know myself, i was basically a mr. mom. i was a full-time teacher for the state. i had a very secure job and i decided to stay at home because my wife didn't want to give up her career. i think that's really the choice. i don't think that's the idea that basically when you have a child you can push a child off on childcare and still keep your whole professional career. i think you're making a sacrifice. and unless of course you're disabled or something like that. guest: very good point. we've had a cultural change in this country over the last several decades. you know, really that's
partially why you've seen the cost of childcare become such a larger portion of raising a child as a whole because, you know, before it was relatively inexperiencive in dollar terms because one parent typically would stay home. that's changed. there's been economic benefits to the country that we've had against our industrialized peers that we've had by and large many more mothers in the work force and that's expanded our potential growth process but it's a change and i don't doubt that many people have made that difficult choice. do i want to stay with my children or do i want to continue my career? he spoke he was a teacher and gave up not just the income he would have made had he worked the years he stayed home with his children but also potential retirement benefits and other things that may have affected his long-term economic process. host: i was going to ask you about other countries. how do other countries handle childcare issues? guest: well, a number of european countries, the amount
of time you receive for maternity leave is quite a bit longer. here in the united states, you have 12 weeks of leave is the guaranteed, the family medical leave act and that's unpaid. it's not unheard of in other countries to have a year or more off. and that's important to think about in this context because that's when childcare is most expensive for, as we were talking about for very young children you're limited to maybe three or four children per caretaker. so it is the most expensive under a year old in countries where essentially they grant mothers or parents the right to stay home for a year, then when they do enter the work force, that's less of a burden. there are, you know, countries where there is subsidized childcare or essentially a public school starting at a much earlier age to help offset the costs. but that comes with costs, right? and a lot of people are very
concerned about increasing our national deficit, increasing government spending and bring up concerns whether the government is best suited to provide things, whether it's health care or childcare. you know, we certainly have for the most part a private childcare system in this country now, you know, making the public system with common benefits and come with consequences just as we see with the health care system. host: i was going to ask you about in this country. is there a trend some companies are providing money for childcare or are they doing childcare at the plants or the offices? is there any trend can you talk to us about? guest: yeah, it is something that a number of companies have recognized as a benefit that's very valuable to their employees. so there is in some cases opportunities to have childcare on site and that's beneficial. i've heard of companies specifically looking at those very young children and saying
we can do this for a year or two, every employee, we invite them to have their children close by. that's good for a number of reasons because the cost is more expensive if the mother is breast-feeding, it may be better to have the child close by. other companies offer what they call backup childcare which is private additional flexibility for parents by having a nanny type service or a daycare option. when your regular caretaker is not available. and that would keep the employee at work, less days they have to take off and anyone that employs a parent knows you'll have your fair share of sick days but the idea would be you're keeping still relatively young employees but those with a little bit more experience in your office, in your company, and certainly some employers see that as a benefit. host: we have a couple callers hanging on. karen, barstow, california, thank you for calling.
caller: hello. i have a daughter who is in junior high school and she has run across kids whose parents have actually given their children up to the system in to foster care because they cannot afford the cost of raising the child. the foster care system pays out $800 per child in california to each foster care family but some of the stories that are coming out of these foster care children are just atrocious. they're being exploited and they're being given cheese and crackers and the dollars these foster parents are collecting is being used just for their own self-benefit and without any care for the children. i think that if you have $800 a month to give to foster care, why don't we have money to give to help
no data personally know on that topic, but that turned sounds disturbing. one way to think about it is that they hundred day dollars a month level, that is not a lot of money. if you look at comparing it to the cost of daycare, the cost of getting a suitable sized home for a family of three children are for children, $300 not go far, especially in a state like california. host: our guest is eric morath, and economic reported for "wall and covers the" economy for the washington bureau and reports an economic data for the fed, treasury and commerce department and has covered bankruptcy news. before joining the organization, he covered the auto industry in
detroit. taking your calls on childcare costs, the headline -- childcare squeezinging, families. keith from new jersey, you are up. i wanted to ask the kind of childcare you are talking about with the offered six months for the employees to bring your kids anytime after you have your kid, and then it is back up daycare after that and it is $30 a day, a tremendous benefit and it keeps me there most of the time. i had to question about the macroeconomic catastrophe based on this. if you have people that are economically saying i cannot afford a kid and millions are crossed country, how many fewer people does that mean they will be in 20 years to enter a
workforce and what effect does that have on the economy, and wise in this framed in a long-term economic issue than a childcare issue of the country? guest: interesting points. fact, you asked about countries and what the other countries do. driver wasn't necessarily looking at family and saying, our population is to thewing quickly degree that we have a burden for social security and things like that -- it is much greater in european countries, and if you do not have a growing population, it is hard to offset that. why is in it framed like this? because just because childcare is more expensive or less expensive, that doesn't benefit people. we have generally been a country
that we don't necessarily go out and encourage people to have more children. this is another topic, immigration. it is the big difference between the united states and many of our countries and our country has fairly open immigration policy. a lot more are restricted and they have to rely on the next generation to create workers. in the u.s., we have other people coming from other parts of the world to work here. host: carol from minnesota. about: i was calling support of more childcare. in minnesota, a lot of main breadwinners are losing their to get a the wife goes minimum-wage job and so does he. and thedren are at home
constant childcare, there's no way to afford it. and here, a lot of people lose their homes and live in their cars. i would like to see support of childcare and the breadwinners. host: looking for more help for people. touched onl, you minimum wage, something that has gotten a lot more attention in the presidential campaign then cost of child care directly. clinton and donald trump avenue spoken about the minimum wage. hillary clinton has been strongly vocal about a five -- about a minimum wage, but bernie sanders spoke of a $15 minimum wage and she edged toward that direction, and donald trump has evolved on that issue quite a bit during the primary debates. he said the minimum wage -- i cannot remember exactly, too high or should not go up
anymore, but recently, he suggested that $10 an hour minimum wage might be something he could support because that is different from what we have seen in congress. there have been bills in -- to raisemake the the minimum wage to $10 an hour and $12 an hour, but that has gotten nowhere in terms of support from republicans. presidential candidates have said they would reopen open to minimum wage increases. host: some states are at $15 now? guest: they will be. california past $15 an hour and cities are underway and close. you are seeing some support there at the lower-level of the pay scale that could offset childcare cost and we're talking about the macroeconomy and there are trade-offs. that means you hamburger may cost more.
starbucks announced they were getting their workers raises, and so also, the coffee will cost a little more. host: what does the typical childcare worker earned these days? guest: i don't have the numbers with me, but it is not a high number. considering this is someone you it trust your childcare to, is shocking, probably in the $15 to $20 an hour range. host: moving on to gary. i was -- i mean, it you act like it was a necessity to take the vacation to eat out on friday. fixingf the family was the meal together, some of the kids will learn how to cook, and at the sit down at the table, they were cap family time without something plugged into
them and when they washed and cleaned up the dishes, if they did it as a family unit, then you would have more unity in the family. a family has to work together to stay together. since he is with "the wall street journal," has he ever wrote a paper on the panama papers? host: completely different topics. guest: that's fine. have written on panama papers, and it is on wsj.com. i was just trying to discuss the broader economic and what kind of is the multiplier affected people are able to go and spend a restaurant or vacation and i can multiply into
greater economic growth down the road. it brings up an interesting point. i think a point that a lot of and looking at family units in a broader perspective, can you find the childcare and reduce the need for childcare by having parents have more flexible schedules, aere they might need only half day of care. could a grandparent or and or uncle provide care and if you have a family member with a child of similar age, maybe they could be cared together and it would reduce the cost to it you doubt to pay to an outside family and that would is something a lot of families have taken a look at and are doing, in part because of what we have seen in the numbers to show that childcare cost is increasing, much more than the cost of food, gas and other necessities. host: under 10 minutes left with our guest.
jean calling from delaware. good sunday morning. how are you? caller: good morning. happy sunday. i think maybe somebody else ight have covered this, but am doing with the immigration with then, -- but immigration population, they have educated people come into the country, nurses, teachers, you name it. also, there are some average homemakers like in america, but haven't worked out. the neighborhood covers it and somebody has to what our time and they have the schedule down. they don't even need a day care system because it is in the culture to do that. none of them are putting out the fax for a day care. they may send their kids to school or this or that, but we are just meticulous in the u.s.
and we are so independent that we think we have to find a day care for kids out there and there are professionals all over. if you and sit down and work out a schedule, you could do it and never have to pay anything in day care. that has been something that sociologists and others have looked at great do we have a declining sense of community in the united states? how well do you know your neighbors? to know the name of your neighbor across the street? would you trust that neighbor to take care of your child if you had an emergency come up? would you offer to take it neighbor's child in? i hear stories with my mother when her -- when she was growing up and it was the case of helping families out and i don't think the caller is wrong. they do not have that same sense of trinity and maybe that doesn't translate to the childcare costs issue. host: in texas, working parents,
ina, welcome. caller: thank you so much. i have never planned to become appearance, but i had a niece who came -- you passed away and i became apparent as a result. thei know why i made decision not to become one. i have a good job and i am very thankful, but there's no way of the world there would have made this choice on my own. it is too expensive to have children, and like i said, i have a good job. it is too expensive, too time-consuming and a ripoff. i do not have the choice of having family. we had little family in the beginning. do i know my neighbors? as many hours as i do, so you look at all those alternatives -- if they do not exist? -- if they do not exist, they do not exist. when you put your child in somebody's home, you better be
very careful. have peoplemetimes who look like you and the same ideas like you, but you don't know if you're putting them in the home of jack ripper or a child molester, so you have to be there a careful about putting your child in daycare, but it is ridiculous that day care can cost almost as much as any private school. thank you up much. we need to change this. guest: i think you bring up a good point. a lot of readers sent me notes after some of these articles appeared and said, well, you cannot afford a child, do not have the child. of it comingmple to different circumstances. youngr someone was very or cases of abuse and things of that nature, and that i think his wife this is an issue that has the attention of
presidential candidates because it is something a lot of people host: are facing. how much do -- are facing. host: how much do you expect candidates to talk about this? how much in the forefront might it be? is an i think there opportunity that this will become more to the forefront because of what we saw at the conventions, where at even if they came to the four at the republican convention and there was an outreach toward women voters and families, to say that we care about this, i think that really invites the question of whether it is in debates or from voters at town hall and what will you do about that? at the same time, i think the democrats, ok, we have a proposal, let's cap this a 10% and there is a huge and enormous cost of that. how are we going to pay for it, make other sacrifices? higher taxes? those are questions voters want
to know when they make a decision. host: what has been the bernie sanders impact along the way? guest: i think bernie sanders on a number of issues, like minimum wage, has tried to pull the democratic party a little bit to the sort of say, let's spend a little bit more. perhaps to offset costs and raise wages. we have some time here to see where the candidate ultimately ends up. host: moving to philadelphia with kathy on the line. caller: thank you for taking my call. one thing i want to bring up and i don't know bit is just for pennsylvanians, but there are subsidies given for day care. i do not know whether it is pennsylvania are a federal i also went to know, congress gets a lot of free stuff, free day care, and i will take my answer off the air. guest: sure, interesting question.
i do not know too many members of congress that have very young children at this point, but you are right that a number of childcare forze lower income people and that did story, some lower income workers, and that is part of the calculation, that their cost for childcare might be $100 to $200 a week. at the same time, wages are so much less and they are facing the same kind of burden as the middle class family that would not receive those subsidies, may have been relatively high family income, but still funny percent to 30% of income goes to childcare. i cannot speak exactly to what congressional programs are. living in washington, i can say federal agencies and those types of things to have
childcare in the building. it is slightly subsidized compared to private cost, but speaking from experience, it is still $300 or so a week, so not free. host: michelle from wisconsin. caller: yes. good morning. i have a comment. i raise a son here who was severely autistic. he is 21 now, but when he was diagnosed at the age of three, i shift at myp.m. health care facility job and i did not have enough seniority to there was noand here thatvailable would take on special needs children like that, so i had no choice but to give up my job and
was care of my son, so it just my husband to worked for the last 21 years until we were able to get him in a long-term facility that was able to take care of him, so how many other parents out there are going to go through what i went through 21 years ago and so on? our parents still having a hard time finding day care for those who are special needs, whether high functioning or very low functioning? here, there is no day care that will take any special needs children like that, so how many parents are actually going through a difficult time because of that? because autism rate is -- it exceeding and what is your comment on that? guest: you bring up a good point
haveit is not uncommon to one year long waiting list as your standard. if you have special needs, someone with special medical issues, those types of things, they can probably be a longer waitlist, eventually more expensive and lead to at home care or like having to have a parent stay home, so i don't have the data specifically on how many base that, but i can say that that is a challenge. i'm not entirely clear as to what area that is in wisconsin, but if that is the case there, they generally do have a challenge of providing services because you have fewer number of populations that faced that issue, but the same challenge as they would as if in suburban new york. host: one last working parent, anita in chapel hill, north carolina.
welcome. are you there? caller: i am here. can you hear me? host: i can. caller: my situation was strange. i have six children and my husband and i divorced and he was always the provider and that is what we had planned. i was able to teach my children, so i did not need a day care or childcare or anything. all my children are at the college now. back then, i would have needed before care, afterschool care, and some of my children had to be a day care all day. my husband is older than me and we wanted a large family, so i , and i finish college was not able to pay for child i ended uphat, and having to stay home and take care of my kids because i cannot
get anything from the government . food stamps, anything, but i was not rich enough to afford myself anything extra, so i went to michigan when they say they will subsidize everyone, inc. about other people who at one children or two children are more who may need help. i happened to want a lot of children and it all worked out. just tookwas children him to the state where he was at and he ended up figuring things out after the children were older, but i was never able to go to college and taoist chemical engineer major and graduated from high school, but there is nothing not here for people to work and take care of the children as far as subsidies that i could find and i was in illinois at the time, near chicago. guest: that is a little of what we have been talking about that at this point, there probably are subsidies to many people on the lower end of the income spectrum, but those in the
middle place a high burden and that is why it is a touchy a difficult issue because when you have -- do you tell someone, we will subsidize the first three children and not after that? that is not something easy to do and that is why it is insensitive but an interesting topic area host:@is -- topic. appreciatemorath, we it. walmart segment in "the washington journal." we will talk with karim mezran from the "wall street journal -- from the "the atlantic council," and the topic will be isis, particularly in libya and it will take a look at events there involving isis and more calls. be right back. ♪
>> i rode to the white house coverage continues with the inen party convention houston. on saturday, the green party chose joel stein as the presidential nominee. as theirtein presidential nominee. watch their speeches tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. also available on the c-span app and www.c-span.org. >> at www.c-span.org, you can watch a political programming any time at your convenience, on your desktop, laptop and mobile device. go to our home page, www.c-span.org, go to the video library search bar to type in the name of the speaker, sponsor of the bill or an event topic. view the list of search results
and go to the program you would like to watch a refined research with our search tools. if you look for the most current programs and do not want to search, our homepage has many current programs ready for immediate viewing, such as "the washington journal," or events recovered that day. www.c-span.org is the public service of your cable and satellite provider, so check it out at www.c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. host: at the table now is karim mezran with "the atlantic council," resident senior fellow. thank you. we asked you to give us an update on libya, specifically, because the u.s. is now battling isis in libya. take us back several years and give us the recent history of the country of libya. what has been going on there? guest: what has happened is at the time, there was a foreign
to overturn and and itt the upper hand was the fall of the regime. there rebuilding national unity, justice, and what has happened is without any previous preparation of the council, the people had no structure or anything, so what happened with the election was it certified the difference and distinction. [indiscernible] it is the most evident one, but there are other communities. all of this came up to the front. to make a long story short,
there was appointed 2014 went in the benghazi, they released an attack against all these groups in benghazi and there were groups in tripoli prevent attacked the airports and then reacted to the attack by spending the newly enacted representatives. the representatives moved under the protection of the house and they revolutionized the point of their own government. this is the main problem over the last few years. we had two different governments. one, there is an organization but does not control much territories and the other one is where they control [indiscernible] this has been going on for a long time.
there is an important point of the united nations and they took the lead. they carried out a negotiation and it was supposed to bring peace and reunite the two sides. the political group that just met and went under the leadership came up and there still has to be endorsed by the government. this creates a problem, or the rehab national government and it came out from the negotiation and it was nice by almost everybody internationally, that there is nothing endorsed nationally. fighting there contemporary war. host: drinking and up to present day, we put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our
guests, residency fellow, talking about the conditions in libya and we look forward to your calls and are taking them in a couple of moments. we read in the last several many days that the u.s. has began a bombing campaign in libya against isis. what has brought us to that point? guest: if you remember a few months ago, there was an attack from an isis group and the and therent through a veryhers, and this is important surprise and it is the first time an american dimension happens following an express request and this is important because it shows the americans and europeans and they are accepting the government, and it is enforcing the role and hierarchy into the country
because it would deem a request from the commander of the troops and for the intervention -- it does not come until there is been an official request to the government. [indiscernible] it is at the request of commanders on the ground and not the other way around. it is for rebuilding the country. host: this is president obama at a news conference talking about isis and libya. [video clip] president obama: at the request of that government, after they had already made significant hadress against isil, and essentially pushed isil into a very combined area in and around , it is in america's national
security interest in a fight against isil to make sure they're able to finish the job, so we are working in partnership with them to assure that isil this lack of a stronghold in libya, even as it begins what is going to be a long process to establish a functioning government and security system that. host: do have a sense of how many isis fighters are in libya and why did it become a focal point for that organization? guest: i never believed the amount of 6000. i get a much smaller number. about 8000 had been dispersed, so this is an issue that has to be. with later on. is,: the second question why libya? guest: because they have shown
enough in iraq and syria, and they are very good and inserting themselves and there is an old reputation of crisis, and weak government, lack of representation of power, so what they did is they enter the city run by islam and a lot of groups were there. they tried [indiscernible] months, they've got they were supporting them, so they are kicked out by that population and not by [indiscernible] that did not happen. moved from their into another city. white that city?
it is a city where most of were supporting and where they were located. grievances. it is not content and upon grievances, she provided tools -- they provided tools and evoked against the government, it was so unpopular that they were on their way and left in the minimum amount reducing by much their support for isis. host: go to calls for our guest -- go tonds first from calls for our guest.
vance? a piece written on isis, and they put it out before world war ii was never a country until mussolini had put it together as one country, and that even after the second world war, when king s was puts put -- idri into power, he refused to cover parts of libya that were not part of the eastern part of traditionally, it was great power center, and that the that the name of the other thes, but my point is that idea of forcing the nation state upon a people is not going to part in ahe best
nation state may not necessarily and it is not something within the consciousness of the people and even today. we need to understand and appreciate how people in libya govern themselves and work among each other instead of trying to impose a particular solution .ornado and external force we have created -- the obama administration has created a byrible situation in libya bombing the country to smithereens. the clinton e-mails have shown that because they were setting up a cold holding in libya, and that was a great threat to international banking establishment. host: thank you for calling. guest: thank you. there are two questions in one. one is historical.
divideds always been putting 92 45 in 1950, there were a number of elites. the country was independent and they forged a new constitution. they did not have time to get work done because you are right, [indiscernible] was being built and then the revolution came. [indiscernible] there is a strong institution. 70% are still tribals, still
divided into not one state or nationality identity. all the people i talked to, they believe they have to find a way to live together because the structure of this is united. the fragmentation of power means to us that you have to get away the last couple of years, what if you want to be in the house, you have to pass through tripoli. anotheryou need program, it is far, far from the separation. i still believe the project of the organization is what the country should pack and they want to stay together. host: let's go to terry in michigan. are you there?
waiting for terry. caller: yes, terry here. you have got me? host: go ahead, sir. caller: i had a question to ask is that i heard over and over again for years, and i am looking straight into the television to our guest and asking this question -- why does to sticksir, continue its fat, long nose into other people's business? turn as i, sir, to look at you now and tell the -- is this our business? to be involved in other people's civil wars? host: he puts the question simply.
what do you think? guest: i agree that no country should interfere into another's, but this intervention is not like 2011. america was not the primary power to intervene. it has been overturned in the situation has been created. and people are suffering there is and that, and it is difficult for america and libya to tell them they can do it by themselves. we need to have some powers, from the europeans and americans. obviously, it is a bad counselor, and the troops try down there and tried, and it got stuck and they needed some support. oursupport comes from government, and on behalf of our government, i do not see any
problem with it. orthere was an attack something from the government, this has not happened. i agree with you on the general point, but on this particular one, i do not see anything bad if they look at the state of the andpean or other countries their support our government and securing the country. it is the country on its knees. there are so many problems and we need so much up. i would rather see the temperature -- the troops coming. host: a caller named davis. good one. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: the comment that i want to make, i did not think we
in other people's business. it is all he can do to take care of our problems at home. at the the time, i look big issue, but i have two grandsons who have become of age during this next administration. military age, and i do not want them to become -- to be content to going to fight in an unnecessary war like i was conned into doing in 1968. host: independent caller, so much of the parties appeals to you most based on that single issue? republican, but i am unaffiliated right now. if i have to vote today, it would refer gary johnson. thanks for calling. there is a tweet to our guest that ask about the government of national accord. stable and libya is is the gna effective?
what is the current level of strength that no? guest: they are far from being stable. there are clashes everywhere, but the rest of the country and are armed, benghazi [indiscernible] there is a lot of tension along the population. host: did -- , it is true, it has not been ratified by the people, but it has been appointed by libyan over parties, so it has its own [indiscernible] likeof the population of it,ee it succeed and fix
must of the population needs the solution to that big problem, so they want the government to work to bring back work, electricity, problems.so many it has beenthat, slow. it has been hanging for too long and it is not show the aggressiveness. i think there are be another two months or three months maximum to allow them what they can see what they can do. after that, it will be dire for the whole population because they are not providing them what they need. host: we have tom from new jersey, independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i think our intervention in libya was a terrible thing. why do i think this?
before we went in, we had possibly the most of the credit country in africa and we went in and looked for oil. italy and france could get their oil from libya and that is why we went in, abusing it. guest: you are talking about 2011 intervention or another intervention? caller: talk about the intervention. it is the same deal, just like iraq. guest: in 2011, oil had nothing to do with it. it was to protect the city of benghazi and the population from the attack of the groups. whether it was [indiscernible] the way i remember was to into their attempt to
throw division. it is the speculation that remains to be seen, but on a deeper level, i have my conditions about the intervention. it should not have been -- they should have forced them to negotiate a proposition, but this is a long, long story, and people wrote about it and it is a complex issue. just to save for oil, it is not correct. also, one thing, it was not a democracy. the democracy is really far-fetched. many positive things were meant for it, but [indiscernible] let's not think about it. host: nicholas, glasgow,
scotland. good morning. caller: good afternoon. good morning. ist i wanted to ask you would you say that aside from this gna secular, it i can call it that, government, what would you say that the population, the religious population there, would be sympathetic to a caliphate outside of the violent aspect of isil? also, is there currently in the dominance of sharia law in the region? i will let you answer off-line. guest: thank you. acceptancee generic to do with caliphate. it is a logical aspect where almost all that say yes.
when you apply and you talk population of the [indiscernible] they are done throughout the country. it is -- sharia law is applied in libya. it has always been there. no sharia law in the sense that [indiscernible] the way most people look at it, it is negative. conservative or a very conservative, but there's not [indiscernible]
this takes away the 5% or 10% of the population that goes to the jihadi groups. it happens in almost every society. focusingther tweet more on isis. you had mentioned earlier that what they're looking for is a split inside of a certain area and taking advantage of it, but few tranquility once to know, what does isis want in libya? what is there and goal? can they achieve their goals? thet: they want to control population, so they have to extract pieces of land in population to be controlled and they want it to be expanded. we can begin to see that they have no room to do that. the have to count on syria, so thea,
support they got from libya was minimal. it is their attempt to control in theirtory and stay province, as the color, and libya. what we are going to see now is [indiscernible] becoming organizations. capable of attacking, inflicting heavy blows, but how do you know? texas, republican, t walker waiting period you are on the air. caller: thank you. -- host: thank you for waiting period you are on there. caller: thank you. i know you're talking about all the jobs are looking -- all the look atng created are
and seem to be a waste when looking at the ultimate results. what do you feel like the role should be for the united states alsour area, in libya, but , what role do you feel like we should be playing in general to helping to unwind the situation? ultimately, a european powers created it in the first place with colonialism. we are where we are and it seems to be one mistake for another, and you had mentioned that the problem with collections is that they were held to soon. from anyid gotten involvement that is happened, whether people are ready for the relations are the ones who do not want to win. anyway, let me ask the question. i want to get information from to know theeded right person to ask that too. guest: [indiscernible]
what the americans should do america taking the lead to diplomatic and cooperating in the western counties that support to bully, who again rebuilding the country. [indiscernible] of your accuracy, state building, contraction of institutions. death,the europeans to but they have experienced quite a few devices when they experience these things. [indiscernible] there must be a moment of control of coordination, and that can come from prestige,
power and charisma that united states has and that is all in the country. it is the power for the libyans to get organized, structure themselves, build an infrastructure. [indiscernible] the target is specific. they have to have them fighting an enemy that is like [indiscernible] you cannot defeat the council by yourself most of the time, so they needed that support and the united states is doing exactly that, and they confided and defeat it. ofs is not the cause instability but the problem on their instability.
maintaining the course to the more liberal and democratic, but in the end, i think that is where most of it begins from. the united states can play a role in helping this happening and supporting this. host: wes from spartanburg, south carolina, democratic caller. go ahead. c-span should do a three-hour sitting with mr. mezran. he just has some interesting perspectives. guest: thank you. host: a comment? is how my only comment much do you think this is bloodlust? think it i say it is i they said that missionaries
[indiscernible] how much do you think united states went to libya just over bloodlust because it was the murder of our citizens? and there's like a ball of navy people, but servicemen [indiscernible] host: he uses the word bloodlust. guest: bloodlust -- he -- host: he describes the u.s. action toward libya as the bus. guest: i don't understand the question. host: he was tied to make the point that perhaps because of lockerbie and other things, the u.s. decided to move him out. best: that could [indiscernible]
you quoted lockerbie" edgar, and these are important points. i believe why the united states wereed libya is that they in the situation to support libya and they were convinced either [indiscernible] they had to continue to support the alliance. was not think the vengeance on this. after and invited what he reacted to his coming and approaching him or to his speech to the united general assembly and that is bothering everybody, so you
[indiscernible] the debt was the main reason -- that that was the main reason, i doubt it. host: what do you expect u.s. policy to look like it donald trump or hillary clinton when the white house? will it change? and how will it change? guest: i question is how will it wille in these two people wonder if it will be president. if they were in the government tomorrow, i can tell you hillary clinton would probably take the more effective modification diplomatic initiatives. when trump talked about the relation, he talks about withdrawing and he would stay takend let the europeans
it, but i don't know if six months from now or one month from now what state the country of libya will be. if isis is not defeated, for example, and it begins to control territory and military either president will have to intervene militarily to stop it, so it is long. host: betsy from william. where are you calling from -- let's hear from william. where you calling from? caller: arkansas. host: go ahead. caller: i heard him say something about the term african and i do not understand what he was saying. and the statement i have, but i will make it a question but it is rhetorical, why are they talking about the talking like that because when they know the only reason they killed him is
when they know his own purpose in the region was to make it in african-based base that supported resources so they would not have to [indiscernible] host: anything you want to respond to? guest: yes, i'm not talking about the fact that gaddafi had vision and used the word in the sense that he did not build up a national identity or the resulting interesting in of becoming a larger unity in libya. [indiscernible] had arguments of every sort. [indiscernible] the fact is that the campaign
was conducted and it became a change in that the followed it, so there were no plans about the structure and to build up their state. host: our guest has been karim senior fellow,t thank you for your time and insight. we thank you for calling in on this sunday. "washington journal" begins every day at 7:00. we will talk with lopez other republicans for johnson welled group and former national vice chair of the caucus and gets to talk about why he and other people support the ticketed gary johnson. and jennifer clark will be a the brennan with center for justice and the topic will be the change to voter id laws. and marcus weisgerber will join
the program, business editor at defense one. and we will talk about $400 billion spent on that f-35 joint fighter and that is a at tomorrow's "washington journal." enjoy the rest of the week and that we will see you back at 7:00 tomorrow for another program. have a great day. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, "newsmakers" with green party presidential candidate jill stein, and then a discussion on the impact of the presidential campaign with them on senator bernie sanders. after that, president obama talks about u.s. efforts to combat isis during a news conference at the pentagon.
>> dr. jill stein is susan: you're up first. a question forve you about the presidential debate. thate has been dismissed you brought to be part of the debates. how severe of a blow is that to your campaign? i am not surprised to hear that you we assumed that would be the outcome. we do have a second case. i am not holding my breath that we are going to get a favorable decision in a court of law.
i think we've already won in the court of public opinion. the public is not happy with the two candidates from the democratic and republican parties. they are the most disliked throughout history. the public is clamoring for more choices. i think the pressure will continue to grow. we are coming up in the polls. paul says we are at 6%. we tripled our numbers in the course of a couple of weeks. we hope to do that again and get to the 15%. i think the american public has a right to vote. they have a right to know who they can vote for. i encourage people to go to our website. you can join our campaign for open debates. deserve inn people this time of great discontent wi