tv Washington Journal CSPAN August 11, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
"washington journal" is live now. host: good morning, everyone on this thursday, august 11. we begin this morning with gun policy and how important is a candidate's stance on the issue to your vote? it ranks on the top five issues for voters. 71% of donald trump supporters and say it is important to them. 74% of hillary clinton supporters say it is the same. we want to hear from you this morning. if you are a gun owner 748-8000. if you do not own a gun 748-8 001. how important is it to your
about? -- vote? the "new yorkwith times" front page this morning. it is the nra. the association has spent millions of dollars on television commercials for mr. trump, even as other republican groups have kept their checkbooks closed. mr. trump has not run any ads of his own. forceful gave a fo testimony at the convention.
the nra this week released a new ad, againstlion hillary clinton. take a look. [video clip] >> she is one of the wealthiest women
in politics. $30 million income. tours the world on private jets. protected by armed guards for 30 years, but she does not believe in your right to keep a gun at your home for self-defense. >> i fully appreciate how life is for so many americans today. >> she would leave you defenseless. the enemy political victory fund is responsible for this advertising. host: the latest ad by the nra. they have spent $6 million in ads supporting donald trump. we want to know how important is gun policy to your vote this november? good morning. welcome to the conversation. go ahead. good morning to you.
good morning, bennie. start over if you could. caller: i am going to vote for hillary, but i think there should be stronger gun laws. the laws that have been in place, those people in florida would not have gotten killed because the gun laws are so relaxed. so ie been shot myself know how it is and i would never own a gun. host: is that one of the reasons why you want to vote for hillary clinton? caller: i am going to hold my nose and vote for her. but shes bad as trump, is a democrat, and i am a democrat, a lifelong democrat. i will hold my nose and vote for her. she has a lot of issues. host: are you a democrat because of the democrats's stance on guns?
caller: i am a democrat because i think their views on the poor and the middle class is stronger than the republicans. ago whenight years george bush was president. would normally get us out of trouble and then we would vote another republican, and i strongly think donald trump is going to be elected because of history. host: the economy does rank as the number one issue for most voters, but gun policy is in the top five. economy, terrorism, foreign policy, health care, and then got policy. socials higher than security immigration, supreme court appointments, education as well. david in maryland is next. caller: good morning. it is very important,
and i will tell you a couple .necdotes i read recently that concealed carry holders, there is a lot less crime with concealed carry holders than the average population. i think that is personal because gun owners respect the law, the constitution, people's rights, but they are not angry people who are just going to want to go out and kill people or hurt people. said is something to be for honoring the constitution and the ability to protect yourself or your family if you need to. i think a lot of people who do not like guns or gun laws misunderstand the issues here. i have a couple of friends, and i will make this really quick,
please do not like guns at all. they went to the gun range with me and learned about guns, and they understand it is not dangerous. the ar15 is not dangerous. it is a low-power rifle. it is good for hunting. it is great for self-defense. it is not a dangerous weapon like a lot of people think. that is all i have to say. host: who do you plan to vote for in the hall? caller: that is a really good question. i don't like either of the candidates. this may be the first year i choose not to vote. host: even though donald trump has the full support of the nra, and he has talked about gun owner rights? caller: i am not a single issue voter. there are a lot of issues at hand with donald trump and hillary clinton. hillary clinton is completely untrustworthy. i think donald trump makes a mockery of our constitution and
embarrasses the united states in front of the rest of the world. host: ok. david, a gun owner in maryland. irwin in florida does not own a gun. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: i am voting for hillary. you have 300 million guns on the street. nobody can touch the second amendment. in no way will it affect it. restrictions in every amendment dealing with freedom. they closed down burlesque shows because it was against the morality of the country. there has to be some restrictions on guns. wantseve hillary clinton intelligent restrictions. the nra wants almost everybody to have a gun. how many thousands of people will be killed this year because
some person is angry at another person. some person has a grudge against society. i think guns have to be controlled to some extent. they are not now. anybody can have a gun. and it isflorida, known as a crazy state. the terrible things we have seen with 14-year-old kids who killed seven or eight kids or go to a movie theater and shoot 90 people or 80 people, things of that sort, it gets worse and worse. you have to have some control. the nra sadly has bought the republican party and donald trump.at least the democrats have something in the platform that will call for some control. will be shotpeople this year than ever before. host: we are talking about how many people in this country need to own a gun. i want to show you this map.
this is the percentage broken down by states who own guns. most gun ownership in states like montana, wyoming, indiana or idaho, new mexico, arkansas, west virginia. those are the darker states. less gun ownership in maine, washington state, oregon, michigan, california. you can see where in the country there is a larger percentage of gun ownership. betty in long island from you own a gun. how important is this issue to your vote? sorry, i thought i moved on to betty. how important is this issue to your vote? caller: it is very good, very important to me. host: ok. caller: do you want me to tell you why? host: yes, please. theer: back in 1981, liberation shot at a car, a new
york city police car, which my brother and another officer were in. so badly thatp they killed one police officer and put 10 bullets into my brother who lives. ever since then, and after going to court and watching the riots of the black liberation army say they are going to put the white man in his grave, i thought it was time i got a gun. this was in 1981. i never had to use the gun, but i think eventually down the road with what i can see now, i am pretty good at predictions. i will leave that done in a few more years at the rate -- taht gun in a few more years at the rate we are going. host: are you supporting donald trump because of his stance on the guns? caller: not just because of the guns. many reasons. do you not see the police? do you not see always people in
movie theaters and everything shot up? that you will never control the guns, ever. host: what do you make of this in the "new york times" as their front page story this morning? and thef mr. trump association of the nra describe their political alliance as a marriage forged at a urgent necessity, an likely pairing of a former gun control proponent, that's donald trump, who lived in a manhattan skyscraper with an advocacy group typically seen as speaking for gun manufacturers and the hunters and sportsmen of middle america. what is your reaction to hearing that, betty? caller: well, i think the as many asave just much involvement with guns as the republicans. that has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are a
democrat or a republican. that is why it is much further down on the list. it is not up there with what is the most important things. people know. it is like the "new york times" made that comment about trump threatening hillary. i watched that speech, and that is not what was said. i have seen the effort that the news media is putting in to really trying to get people to vote against trump. now, you know what that does? i have to tell you, it makes people want to vote for him. the more that i tell you don't vote for him, they vote for him. i don't understand where they are coming from. host: you will be interested in this because the opinion section of "usa today" touches on that. thenator from alabama is donald trump foreign policy committee chairman. this filing unless
stopped, and he blames the media. uses voters are sick and tired of being touted by information negatively influencing an election. even with secretary clinton was in the midst of a worse week -- he writes that in "usa today." the view of the paper is the runaway trump train goes even further off the rails. they say republican officials fearful of offending trump supporters continue to try to explain the candidate's and a smokable outbursts.
those supporters are advised to run, not walk away from the trump train. in the last two presidential elections, the nra has not spent a single dollar on commercials backing the republican nominees. john mccain in 2008 and mitt romney in 2012. basement spent $61,000 aiding george w. bush's reelection bid. and only in washington. hillary clinton late out her gun policy at the democratic national convention in philadelphia last month. here is what she had to say. [video clip] mrs. clinton: serious about keeping our country safe. we also cannot afford to have a president who is in the pocket of the got lobby -- fugun lobby.
[applause] here to reveal the second amendment. -- repeal the second amendment. i am not here to take away your guns. i just don't want you to be shot by someone who should not have a gun in the first place. [applause] we will work tirelessly with responsible gun owners to pass commonsense reforms and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and all others that would do us harm. for decades, people have said this issue was too hard to solve, too hot to touch. but i ask you, how can we stand by and do nothing?
you heard, you saw family members of people killed by gun violence on the stage. you saw family members of police officers killed in the line of duty because they were outgunned by criminals. i refuse to believe we cannot find common ground here. host: that was hillary clinton last month at the democratic national convention laying out her gun policy. we are asking you this morning, how important is a candidate's's stance on guns to your vote this november. we read from "usa today" critical of hillary clinton having a rally recently where the father of the orlando shooting attended. this from several folks following her campaign on the trail. damage control in progress. clinton campaign response to report that the orlando terrorist's father attended.
according to the campaign, the rally was a 3000 person open-door event for the public. this person was not invited as a guest, and they campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event. we will go to fred in cherry hill, new jersey, not owning a gun. good morning to you. caller: good morning. be voting for hillary for a number of reasons, and this is just one of them. the video that c-span showed a few weeks ago, the nra video. the man in the video admitted that there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the united states a year and 19,200 of them are suicides, as if somehow that doesn't account. those people would commit suicide another way of they do not have guns. no doubt, some of them weren't, many of them would, but some would not.
i happen to know a lady who's son committed suicide after his fiancee jilted him, and she is convinced that would not have happened had there not been a gun in the house. i am pretty sure she is right about that. host: sarin. are you that -- sorry, are you done? caller: that is about all i wanted to say, yes. host: from illinois, also not a gun owner. go ahead. caller: i am not a gun owner. i hate guns. i don't like guns at all, but i completely support guns and the second amendment and the right to own responsibly. i think the nra does promote responsible gun ownership. it irritates me so much. you play a little clip of hillary clinton. we cannot any longer stand by and do nothing. i am from chicago and have lived in chicago most of my life. the streets are bloody from gun violence. rahm emanuel is not held
accountable. senator, i will not vote for him again. i am a staunch republican. i will not vote for him again because he does nothing. they bring these issues up for elections to promote their campaigns to get themselves in a nice little comfortable seat. there.s are being out do guns need to be addressed? yes, but these are not legal responsible gun owners. they need to get out there and take these off the streets, stop the gang activity, stop the drug activity, do more for mental health, not wait until it is an election year and how wonderful if the reader is and the democrats are. they just don't like guns. they don't like people being killed. host: let me ask you this. would you support universal background checks? caller: i would to a point.
i don't see anything wrong with background checks. these are points that, yes, when they are being hardheaded about those things, i don't agree with that. they should have that. ast: so you are aligned with research that found 80% of the public, including large majorities of republicans and democrats, favored making gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks. number two, background checks have proven to be more contentious in practice than in principle they say. the republican party holds a slight advantage over the democratic party in reflecting the public's views about that control. 43% said they were public and private better job of reflecting the views about gun control compared to 37% who said the democratic party would do better. these are artifacts by pew on gun control.
it has become more politically and ideologically polarized over the course of a decade and a half. number five, the reasons that some americans own a gun have changed. in 1999, far more gun owners cited hunting that self protection as the main reason they own guns. those attitudes have shifted. 48% said protection is the main reason while 32% pointed to hunting. we are talking about gun control and gun policy. how important is it to your vote and why you are choosing whoever you are choosing in november? goodgood morning -- matt, morning. caller: good morning. host: is it important to you? caller: yes. it should be important to everybody. the criminals are always going to have guns. they will steal them, do whatever they need to do to keep
guns. theou look online at different robberies that have gone on, a lot of it does not even make the news. they pull up to a gun store, rapid chain around the door, yank the door off, run in, grab a hundred weapons, and run out the door. they are sitting back laughing, hoping that laws get passed to keep guns away from honest americans. we are in a situation in this country where the criminal element is huge. the last caller touched on it. they gains are running the streets and controlling the streets. people are afraid to go out in their own streets. it is nuts. and needs to be cleaned up. that is why we are here. that is why we are at this junction. if all of the violence that has
transpired recently has, we would not be here. terrorists, if you go online, they are encouraging attacks in places where people will not have guns. host: we will leave it there. mark in indiana, not owning a gun. caller: how are you? host: warning. i-- morning. is this important to you? caller: it is important, but it is not a top five issue. owner, but i have considered it in the past and would consider it in the future. on the other side, i would like to understand why everyone seems to forget the word regulated is in the second amendment? host: what do you mean by that? why do you point that out? caller: well, because we are not
really debating contrary to the nra ads that hillary wants no guns in your home. we are wanting a level of regulation. think anybody wants to take guns out of people's homes, but like i said, the word regulated is in that amendment. the guy that just called talking about the criminal element in the nra is against people on a no-fly list having guns. there you go. there is a criminal element. the nra wants the terrorists to have guns because gunowners think the nra represents them, but they don't. what they really represent is the gun manufacturers who want to increase sales. host: ok, that is mark's potts in indiana. we will hear from gerald in west virginia, one of the larger
percentage states of gunowners. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i don't fit in either category. i am an old man. i owned a gun when i was younger. i don't have a gun because i'm in a nursing home. two things bother me about the discussion. one is the one the man just mentioned. he mentioned well-regulated. regulate, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. my solution to this would be to have everyone over age 25 designated, every citizen of
this country over 25, designated a member of the militia. states are to be involved in their registration and training. they are used as necessary to secure the state against terrorism. host: ok. gerald in west virginia. other news this morning, and then we will get back to your calls. the "washington post." a newly released state department e-mail shed additional light on hillary clinton and her top aides maintain during her time as secretary of state part of a public record lawsuit --
is is the clinton foundation wanted a meeting between one of their members and the u.s. ambassador to lebanon. as it turned out, this former ambassador said he never connected with that billionaire. me."ever contacted that is in the "washington pos " ." we will learn more about that coming up on the "washington journal." the "new york times" has a front-page story on the dnc hack. it can be wider than previously known. notifying a long list of democratic officials that the russians may have reached their -- breached their personal accounts. that federalent
drug agents regularly mine american travel information to profile people who may be faring money for narcotics traffickers, though they never use what they learn to make arrests. the dea surveillance is separate from the vast and widely known anti-terrorism apparatus that surrounds air travel, which israel used for routine law enforcement. it has been carried out -- which is rarely used for routine law enforcement. the story out of baltimore and that doj with the report about incidences with leasing their -- there.licing we would get your thoughts on it in our last hour of the "washington journal." the "usa today" says officers routinely conducted excessive force often targeting black residents and the income african-american neighborhoods.
department's zero-tolerance strategy had little impact on crime solving while severely damaging community relations. we want to get your thought on this report, but also this idea of zero-tolerance policing. law enforcement to call in for that conversation as well. i want to share this story from the front page of the "washington times." wisconsin's strict voter laws ing voter id can remain in effect in november, delivering a victory to antiviral activists.
notes inside the story that texas, north carolina wisconsin, and kansas have ruled against identity requirements, in many cases finding that the state legislatures that pursued their restrictions did sell specifically to disseminate. thosthat discriminate -- discriminate. host go ahead. caller: the way the question is framed this morning is concerning because it is encouraging people to join one side or the other. candidateat neither wants to eliminate the second amendment, did you feel differently about how they approach gun-control? host: i hear what you're saying, anthony, but we have space
restrictions. caller: the point is the whole thing exploded over what inpened, what trump said it the second part of his comment. he was wrong when he said she is trying to abolish the second amendment. that is factually incorrect. we are having a discussion, and you are listening to a discussion about something that is factually incorrect. what is the point? a second issue. if you get some money from the nra on your show, and you could periodically to, if you ask them if they could have everyone in america own rifles for hunting and guns for safety, with that satisfy their objective in meeting the second amendment rights? the answer is going to be no. it is because they are in a position they are trying to protect the gun lobby and allow
for more gun sales. having a handgun for safety and rivals for hunting, that is not enough. that is not why they are doing what they are doing. only you can pose that question when you get some money from the nra on the show. i hope when that chance comes up, i hope to hear that. host: ok, anthony. we have asked the nra to come on this show and talk to you several times, they have not. we have to talk to other gun rights groups on this program. if you missed it, you can go to our website. following up on anthony's comments, the "washington post" editorial repeating what anthony just said that hillary clinton has never said she wants to abolish the second amendment. they go to her gun policy position and say it is not enough. decent universal background checks would help.
the "washington times" editorial this morning, they are critical herillary clinton on reaction to hearing what donald trump had to say about the second amendment. they say she turned his remarks into a familiar plea for money. she sent out a plea for money begging supporters, i am asking you, when you chip in to make 100% sure we stop him? two different editorials for you this morning on this debate that has been happening in the media
and between the candidates over the second amendment. we will get back to more of your thoughts in just a minute. joining us on the phone is john wagner, a political reporter with the "washington post" two preview hillary clinton's economic speech in michigan today. john wagner, where will she be? what will she be saying? guest: she will be an warned, michigan, which is just outside of detroit. from not expect a lot new her in terms of policy. it is reframing a proposals to put out of work am investing in jobs and infrastructure, debt-free college, trying to expand the number of workers who can share in the company's profits. proposal along those lines. i think you will hear as much about donald trump as you about hillary clinton in this speech. she is going to go after him as someone who is putting out
regurgitated trickle-down economics and looking out for millionaires like himself with the proposals he put forward earlier this week. host: what are some differences between what all caps at earlier at the detroit economic club and what hillary clinton will propose today? guest: she is really going to go after one specific thing that he put out there, which is a method of taxation for small businesses and other entities referred to as pass-through tax, where is that of being a corporate tax, the taxes will get picked up on their own or's for -- owner's form. say if you look at the various scores of entities that make up the trump
organization, most of them are constructed that way, so she will argue he is trying to help himself in that instance. host: who is she targeting in this speech today? guest: she is targeting the lower and middle class. getting back to your first question about where she will be today, the county in which she is delivering a speech is no accident. it is a very blue-collar county. one that has swung back and forth in elections. democrats won four. republicans have won four. a real swing county in a potential swing state. host: you can tune in at 1:15 p.m. eastern time. that is where hillary clinton will be. you can watch c-span, listen to c-span radio, or watch it on trump. john wagner, thank you for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: back to your calls about the policy. how important is it to you this
november. i ago, north carolina, gun owner -- fayetteville, north carolina, gun owner. go ahead. caller: it is not a supported to me as other domestic issues like infrastructure and income inequality. with that being said, my concern is when you have some people that think that the second amendment is basically carte blanche to own any weapon that , it is an outdated concept in my opinion, and the reason i say that is in the 1700s when this amendment was put in place, it had a certain level of symmetry. , the civilian populace only had rifles. now, you have people walking around with rifles and shotguns. it assumes that the government
is running on symmetrical warfare. this is not symmetrical. andou walk around with 5.5, you think you are going to overthrow the government with bullets, it is not going to work. a bullet that has range of 500 meters is not going to stop a rocket or mortar that has a range of several miles. it is just not practical. host: even in sioux falls, south dakota does not, own a gun. good morning. caller: i have never been comfortable around guns, using guns myself, by never mind reminded those around me from my father to my friends. i learned to fight with my hands growing up in brooklyn. i was quite effective. however, i realized i had the death withuse a
that, and i quit fighting period. now that i am older and crippled, i am reconsidering. maybe i should be carrying something for self-defense in case i get attacked. that under the natural law principles on which our nation was founded, the right to expected.se is to be , the fact thatit we are born with an immune system should tell us something. that is self-defense. it is inborn. host: who are you going to vote for this fall? caller: i don't like any of them. i can't even accept the green party's position. $15 an hour minimum wage is really going to put a lot of people out of work. host: we talked to a green party
candidate on our "newsmakers" program last weekend. this weekend, we will be talking to the libertarian presidential candidate, gary johnson, on "newsmakers" which airs on sunday at 10 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern time. rally, donald trump was talking about tensions in the middle east between iran and iraq. here is what he had to say about the responsibility of president obama. [video clip] mr. trump: for years and years, these two countries fought. decades and decades and decades, they fight. that is what they did, they fight. they fight for four years. they fight for four more years. saddam hussein would drop gas. everybody would complain. tremendous carnage. they would stop. they would start. it would never change. this way, this way, this way because you had military powers
of essentially the same strength. then, we decimated one of the powers, and we unleashed fury all over the middle east. and was a terrible mistake. then, obama came in. normally you want to clean up. he made a bigger mess. he made such a mess. and then you had hillary with libya. so sad. respects, theyy honor president obama. presidentnoring obama. isis.the founder of is the founder of isis. he is the founder. he founded isis. cofounder would be crooked hillary clinton. host: donald trump at a rally
yesterday. the "washington post" has a front-page in-depth story about donald trump in a lawsuit that he filed. by filing it, donald trump opened a challenge of this fact. trump brought it on himself. he sued a reporter accusing him of being reckless and dishonest in a book that raised questions about his net worth. the attorneys turned the tables.
it goes on to say trump that -- the maximum a statement can receive 39 times since he announced his bid last summer. we are talking about gun policy this morning with all of you, and how important is it to your vote? new jersey, help me with your name? caller: thank you. good morning. host: good morning to you. you are on the air.
caller: what do you think that -- you are on the air. what do you think? caller: it is not the most important thing. to me being a former republican,, it is important stop the name-calling and also that he will reveal his tax record. that is important to me. host: aliright. let's talk to steve in michigan. caller: how are you doing? host: morning. caller: it is not really that important of an issue per se. when bush was elected and clinton was elected, to the issue was with the nra. they are just a gun lobby. they are not for the gun owners. they are for the gun lobbyists. i own guns. meon't know why she listed
as i own guns, but my issues are on the other side. buy a gun i had to and got a concealed weapons permit because of my job. now, it has gone to the point since trump has been running for ifice, i talk to people thought had common sense, and , they don't talk think trump is lying when he lies. kind of weird. fromof them i know northern michigan are not gun nuts but glorify guns and everything. ironic.of i am owning a gun because i am protecting myself. at some point in time, if trump gets elected, who knows what will happen? is a loose cannon -- he is a
loose cannon. host: a couple other headlines for you this morning. abc reporting it as well as cnbc the hillary clinton is excited to release 2015 tax returns and that she will do that this week and will release 10 years of tim kaine's returns as well. cnbc reports clinton's returns will show roughly 35%. this is to put pressure on donald trump to release his returns. also, this headline from the that theeet journal," former dnc chair is in a contested primary taste in florida -- race in florida. that is on august 30. she is likely to win. that is what politico israel is reporting, by her challenger has been endorsed by bernie sanders. incumbent.d the
that is the latest in that primary following up paul ryan winning his primary this week as well in wisconsin. there is this story on the "washington post" front page. some are hoping they may ride a split decision. they are hoping people will split their ticket. rob portman in ohio has been setting volunteers to delay clinton and tim kaine events, passing out campaign materials to those gathered there, hoping that hillary clinton, those that are supporting her, might split their ticket and vote for him in his senate reelection race. let's get in pedro for this conversation in arizona. does not own a gun. ever last for this conversation.
good morning. caller: good morning. one of the things i wanted to make sure is the understanding of the constitution. in the old dictionary of the 1800s, it is very very clear, very specific. means too bear arms belong to the militia, to be a soldier in the militia. gun.es not mean to carry a you have to go back to the original dictionaries. they have one entry in there. it is very clear. the right to bear arms, it says to belong to the military.
that we have to run at point. one more note before we got a break here. this week, the c-span bus was in downtown chicago for the national conference of state legislatures annual summit. legislatureste that members from all over the country are in attendance for this four-day conference. learn more about this in our road to the white house coverage and watch speeches from the campaign trail archived on c-span.org. the state legislators also shared thoughts on the election. you can follow the us on twitter to watch their responses and get more information on the c-span community effort and was scheduled. so to our website -- and bu schedule. go to our website at the bottom of the home page. coming up, eric lipton from the
"new york times" is here to discuss a series for investigative reporting examining think tanks in washington and has some of them are blurring the line between their role as educational institutions and their involvement in the corporate world. later, a roundtable discussion on the state of the economy, job creation with the bureau of labor statistics commissioner, and the "washington post" respondent. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv on c-span2. 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here is the future programs for this weekend. on saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, the supreme court of justice hornberger is the focus
of linda greenhouse's book. she speaks of politics here in washington, d.c. at 10:00 p.m. eastern afterwards with syndicated radio host dana lasch, she argues the u.s. is splintering into two countries, coastal america and flyover america in her book. you cannot run a country you have never been to. she is interviewed by guy benson. >> it seems in so many ways that not just really so much in flyover nation, although they are targeted, you have his back and forth pulling them in one direction or the other, and it goes back to we need you to show up a certain way to vote or support particular issues. that divide is kind of scary because politics is affecting without not we are going to be able to easily defend ourselves against a major threat. >> on sunday at 7:00 p.m.
eastern, a journalist looks at how some school policies are having a negative impact on the lives of black fema students in her book -- female students in her book. she argues that schools and other institutions that are supposed to help are the very places criminalizing black girls. go to book tv.org for the complete schedule. >> "washington journal" continues. host: back at our table this morning. "ric lipton, "new york times washington correspondent here to talk about a series he did looking at think tanks and corporate influence. i want to read from your first piece where you wrote in the chase for funds, and tanks are pushing agendas important to corporate donors. explain the partnerships that you saw. guest: it used to be that when
you went to support a think tank, you would give them a restricted grant. i like the work you do. you play an important role in society. here is $1 million. do the kind of research you want to do that will help inform society about important topic. nowadays, increasingly, foundations and corporations give project-based funding. they say here is $100,000, $1 million. we wanted to do a report on this specific topic. we also want potentially to see the report as it is been developed and maybe make some comments on it. we would love to see you draft before you publish it. that is a different relationship, and a lot more about project responding is going on now is in washington.it changes the relationship between the donor and think tank. in potentially affect the outcome of the report as well. host: what is the impact? guest: not all intents, something tanks allow the donor
to play a significant role in quote corrections to a report to make sure their perspective is heard. it can have an impact on the content of the report. fact, even when the donor has interviewed the money to have that right to play that role, it is not even disclosed that they would donate the money and play the role. public is misinformed that this is in fact a report that is to some extent almost commissioned by the donor and is going out in the name of the think tank which has this air of authority and independence. host: who is receiving this information and acting upon it? guest: right over there on capitol hill. the reports are passed out every day to staffers and members of congress. members of congress hold the records in their hands and read from them at hearings.
they are distributed to the administration. go to the hill and brief staffers on the reports. they are on your show and in our newspapers and everywhere pontificating on the findings. we need to know what role did the donor play in this study? host: we cover them here on c-span posted by whatever think tank it may be. does the public know who the people are that issued the report and their relationship to these corporations? guest: most of the problem with think tanks these days is an exception. most of them published pretty comfortable lists annually of who their donors are, and it is typically available on the website. but not all of them put in the report itself who the project-based funder of a specific report is. just putting it in your annual
someone the fact that was a donor to this particular think tank does not allow you to know that they funded a particular report. level ofa differing transparency in this whole process. --aking with c-span at aing of c-span, i was function live on c-span, and there was a nice person i have known for a number of years who used to work at the department of homeland security, was a helpful person there, but he was sitting there giving a talk about the role that the department of homeland security plays in doing what they call preclearance at airports in certain countries around the world. you go through customs before you enter the united states. he was among the panelists of an event he was moderating, and he had the title with a guy sitting
next to him from the toronto airport authority. this whole event went on c-span but it was never disclose that the person sitting next to him was a client, a lobbyist. he was helping them nationally promote their agenda and using his title as a scholar. the public should know that. that seems inappropriate to me. host: does it make that title available? guest: at that event, there was no disclosure the fact that the toronto official sitting there was his client. only after the end of the event, i walked up and said stuart, isn't this guy your client? the event was over. c-span was done with his presentation. the u.s. went on to another topic. he said this is totally normal. -- we have done this before. that is normal? that same day, i did not know it, but apparently he told the that this had
happened and i asked the question and they post on the website that there was an inappropriate act at this event and that we regret that there was not a disclosure. i happened to call them on it that one day. your viewers never knew this but on their website it is mentioned. i asked about it one day and it was suddenly outed, but how frequently does that happen? does the public know? host: if you go to c-span.org, you can find event eric is talking about, the passenger preclearance was the topic. what has been the reaction from think tanks? you feature several of them in your story, but what is the reaction, and have they changed policy? guest: even as we were working on the story, and it took us quite a long time, the think tanks were changing their policies. we did a survey late last year
of like 25 think tanks and ask them about their policies regarding project-based and outside scholars and potential conflicts of interest. we asked them a series of questions that were pointed. it is clear we were headed with the story. even as we were asking those questions, the think tanks were starting to change their policies. theicularly regarding outside work that scholars can have as consultants or lobbyists, which seems crazy, at a same time as they have a think tank title, you will see a fair amount of change on that. it seems inappropriate for a scholar to be simultaneously using his or her position at a think tank tumoto pontificate as a consultant to a telecommunications company or a lobbyist. i think you'll see more policies in think tanks to prohibit that. host: you feature bookings
institutions in your story. tell us what you found out about andbookings institution, that i wanted to react to what they have to say about your reporting. guest: first, one thing i want to say, think tank they employ really smart people who have a great level of expertise. on death, congress and the administration relies on them for their knowledge. dear -- their ability to put things into perspective. the reason that this is important and to some extent the public think they are wonks. think tanks are part of the dce economy, the intellectual environment. i admit it -- i admire brookings in the work it does. i just want to preface anything that i am saying in general not
just about brookings. we did focus a fair amount on brookings. and they are considered by the , in upen. they are ranked the number one prestigious think tank in the world. they are well respected. if there is a problem of thatings, it is up place it is integrity, independence and impact, it suggests there is a problem systemically. we spent a fair amount of time looking at them. we also happen to get a lot of internal documents from them that allowed us to see the kind of conversations they were having with donors and put it so -- attentional donors, and the money they were giving -- given.
the began to look at the documents and shocked in some cases at the exchanges that were going on in which it were discussing things that were for consulting arrangements and consulting with potential dollars relative to things that in return foriver contributions. these are tax exempt organizations. they are supposed to be doing work that benefit society. they are not supposed to be there to help the process -- for-profit interest of their donors. we saw lines in the documents that showed us that they were providing donor benefits that seemed inappropriate. host: they said the reporter's thesis to buttress their with phrases lifted from thousands of pages of in draft-document using them out of context.
guest: i admire a lot of the work that they do. did,s a report that they kkr is an investment firm based in new york. decided they would set up a multibillion-dollar fund to do more investments in real estate and infrastructure. it significantly increases its donations to brookings. personinate, a smart works at kkr. we see that he suggested to brookings that they write a report about public-private partnerships, which are type of private equity or investments that they make in sewer systems, fundsplants, the company
the infrastructure. and maybe they should cowrite it with kkr. brookings agrees to cope right this. it has been posted on the website and it promotes one of kkr's projects in new jersey. what you have by doing this report, you are putting the stamp of brookings on this kkr investment effort. -- to a donor. hase's so much of that kkr given hundreds of thousands of dollars to brookings. introducehelp to help their executives to people in kkr. helpingbrookings doing them? from mye benefits that reading of that in exchange for money. i don't see that as a role of a
think tank. host: john in pennsylvania, in an dependent. caller: kudos to you for this article. sinclair said it is difficult for a person to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it. that sums up these think tanks. heritage, manhattan, american enterprise, all those guys. the cato institute was start by -- started by the koch brothers. there is money behind all of this stuff to push an agenda which is generally a corporate agenda. i want you guys to do a series this.s and expose it's like you say, it is duping
the american people. guest: what we observed is this is happening on the left and on the right. it is happening everywhere. particularly when you have a situations where u.s. scholars who have outside engaged -- engagements. when of the things we found is that think tanks give up these nonresident scholars titles. then the individual -- in this happens on the left and right, the person walks around washington, saying i am a senior fellow nonresident. that -- they are also a consultant. thing is there has been a pleasure for ration in washington, the story focuses mostly on the large institution. are all the small places
that have started out that call themselves think tanks. are they really think tanks are advocacy shops that are using the cover of a think tank to promote agendas for the donors? it really has modeled -- it hurts the big institutions. these small places are narrowly focused on telecommunications and health care. likehey seem to be almost industry-driven entities. the proliferation of those have made the think tank host: a more context process. taxxamination of 75 income an array of researchers who had simultaneously worked as lobbyists, members of corporate boards or outside consultants in litigation with only intermittent disclosures of their dual role at these think tanks. syracuse new york, democrat. good morning. caller: i'd like to know more
about the center for american progress. being a democrat, i am wondering why they don't have more ideas offered to the public. let's say the medical device taxes one of them. we know who runs -- podesta runs that organization and emmanuelle was one of the policy writers for the aca. i'm wondering how a think tank and have no ideas asked to how now that theca, medical device tech is been delayed, i think it's amazing that the think tank does not come up with alternative ideas, like why not tax cousin medics. host: i'll have eric jump in and talk about this. scene toey came on the some extent as an answer to the heritage foundation. it used to be that it was the
conservative organization that dominated the clearly slanted space in the think tank world. aftere extent, i think the clinton administration, the left realize, if there is going to be heritage, cato, to the conservative side than the liberals should have their own think tanks that promotes the progressive agenda. the center for american progress was created by podesta, and now the clinton did -- campaign. focused agendat driven organization that parallels, not as extreme as the heritage. beginning of the growth on the left of ideologically oriented think tanks. complicated washington is that you have more and more
ideologically driven think tanks. it's hard to distinguish if it's the ideology that's influencing the report or the strength of the argument and the data that is driving the conclusions. the center for american progress is featured in the stories in a modest way. and anlow browner advisor in the obama administration had the title of scholar at the center for american progress. it is an unpaid position but at the side time she had become a paid consultant to nuclear matters, which is a nuclear industry entity that is promoting the preservation of nuclear power plants in the united states. presentations and places around the world where she was introduced as a former epa official and a distinguished scholar at the center for american progress, then she wanted to talk about we need to
do more about the nuclear power plants because they are in --.rtant part of our before the story came out, she stepped down -- there's a lot of things happening, she stepped down from her position. she is still on the board at cap . she played an important role in several administrations, but this is an issue. host: a are concerned their integrity will be questioned if it this continues it is any reaction from capitol hill? is there any talk about doing something about their tax-exempt status? i don't think it is any discussion of that. i spent a day on capitol hill
before the story came out, near where the subway cars get out and senators came over to vote on various things. i try to talk to them about this topic. a couple of them said -- left at me -- laughed at me. a lot of them, those that did spend the time to speak with me for a couple minutes, richard blumenthal, from connecticut and elizabeth warren for quite a while on this. they are concerned about this. those are two democrats. they do think about this a lot. they get these reports, these reports are landing on your desk by the dozens, these think tank reports. but members of the congress are concerned about where do these reports really come from them and who pays from them. don't we need to know about
them. that there is some discussion of, for example, there is some discussion, when you submit comments to the agency on a proposed rule and -- ase doing at as a dish a think tank scholar you should disclose you have a financial is -- interest. that should be disclosed as part of the comments, we need to know that information. you're an expert and your argument is much more persuasive than the average person. when you come to testify a congress maybe you should have to disclose who funded your study. there are these truth and testimony forms you fill out. funded bysearch get any particular company that is
relevant to study? there is no question like that and maybe it should be included in the house rules. guest: for jeanette, republican. thank you for waiting. i wanted him to react to think tank heritage. about 501c.o know that's kind of unrelated. how are they categorized in the tax code? 501c3's.hey are01c 501c4s -heritage
is a model, with heritage in action how front they can become in terms of atticus -- efficacy as opposed to research. advocacy as opposed to research. and heritage action which is a subsidiary have become much more aggressive in the last decade in terms of rating lawmakers on their position in a way that turns them more into advocacy organization then think tanks. it is a blurring of the lines. it is a complexity for the think tank community. what is a think tank. what are its principles, what is its role. -- publicthe percent perceive that role to be.
these are becoming increasingly bury -- blurry. it plays an important role. integral --tus as integrity and authority. if all of this is happening, it undermines its authority. it threatens its role in the ideas in washington. host: paul is next, independent. caller: i have a challenge for all of the c-span junkies out 79 and i have been watching c-span since brian lam first introduced it. the more that people talk, the longer they talk -- i think it's generational. every time that people are talking along and they use the
i mean, you know, every time they interject that phrase which is kind of hard on after two or three hours of listening to people talk, i wonder how people understand how people understand how they are extending their conversation. if they had to put a dime in the jug every time they misuse those phrases we could pay off the national debt. guest: i work on that. morning.ood i'm a phd. i have done my own research and in rock with people -- interact with people.
how potentially dangerous this is to the public and also how income believes the process in it convolutions the process in washington. or it might actually be biased. msnbc and without going into specifics of the positions of the respondents, one of the reasons put forward is on a study and it seemed to be refuted, it didn't really -- the month of rigor to generalize a statement across the board. again particularly with the smaller new institutions that are narrowly focused on industry stec -- sectors, where
the data is -- seems to be biased. the conclusions are clear from before the study was started. i think that is less of a problem at the big institutions. one of the things the big institutions say -- and i believe them -- when they take insistrom donors, they they maintain intellectual control of -- of the outcome of the report. they do the research and richard a conclusion that is contrary to -- and reach a conclusion that is contrary to -- they will still publish the court. -- publish the report. i think that does happen. don't think they typically will publish a report that would completely undermine the donors goals but maybe there will be aspects to the report that
aren't consistent with their corporate agenda. about -- with some of the smaller institutions, if the data is state -- stacked. our guest is writing an article about think tanks and corporate influence. , theollow-up on august 8 caller was asking about the impact of these reports, you talk about it in congress but what about the impact on the courts themselves you with using this type of research or data that has been influenced by corporate interests. guest: some of the think tank scholars are submitting amicus sidingin court cases and with their -- signing as researchers at a think tank and not disclosing that they may on
the outside be consultants to industry players. the same thing is happening in court cases. one of the biggest things that can happen -- there is a fair amount of disclosure already. the problem with these people is frequently they will say, i am a consultant at economist inc., they will mention the name of the firm but you won't know who their clients are. it doesn't do the viewer or reader much help if you have the name of the firm. the more disclosure the better off this world is. florida,t lauderdale
it's your turn for a question or comment. --ler: i want to thank ms. mr. lipton for being on your show and talking about this sort of thing. just mention the fact that some of the smaller think tank when they are proselytizing, one doesn't know where they came you think this guy should know what he is talking about, which leads me to this. a lot of the same people show up on c-span. i love c-span that some of these people do show up on c-span. when some of these guys from smaller think tanks show up on c-span and start talking and they are treated as authorities by the hosts.
judge.t is not there to but people listening to them and not knowing where they are coming from when they are actually coming from somewhere have a point of view, just accept them as authorities. that's one thing i would like to hear the guests talk about. when these people show up on callingw, are they c-span saying please let me come on and talk or is c-span calling them seeing we need a guest today. out -- itften reach depends on the topic. we are topic driven. if there is something in the news about a certain topic we will sometimes not in the news, we are trying different voices and different perspectives to come on the program and talk about it. we try to balance out those
perspective. if we have a conservative on a certain issue, we will have a liberal on to talk about that as well. you make a valid point. our job is to ask questions about the gas that are sitting him, where did the research come from and where do you get your funding from. those are questions that you all ask as well. it is your opportunity to talk to folks in washington and ask them those questions. guest: we have the same problem at the new york times. think hank scholars are often outside consultant. they don't disclose sometimes that this person is also a consultant to a telecommunications industry.
we publish talking about net neutrality without disco -- disclosing net neutrality. it is hard to police this. the players that have the platforms must police it and we must interrogate and question the people who they are taking their questions from. in this area of scholarship, have you as an individual or your institution received funding and which specific companies have funded your work before should know that we give them a platform as a guest status or op-ed platform. i wrote the story with other the three of us spent two years on this. it was a long time coming. we did not work on it full-time for two years that we had been collecting information.
we sued the state department to get information. we waited 18 months for them state department to respond. this is a team of project and neck and myself and my editor thatarious other editors spent weeks and weeks of labor on this to tell the story comprehensively and we hope fairly. host: and we often reach out to these groups. we are often making the phone calls to find out if there is somebody who can speak to this topic. we do often receive hitches like other places, this expert who can talk about this topic. it is a two-way street. transparent with folks about how it works and trying to find out the information like you said.
guest: they will always volunteer it. it is our burden to make sure we get the information. not: a republican and and -- in annapolis you are next. caller: thanks for c-span and thank you mr. lipton. i would like to say i find it rich that some representative from the new york times would be discussing lack of disclosure and objectivity in anything. the new york times has been so biased. i recently read two editorials by her own editors bemoaning the bias. when i hear you talking about the think tanks, if you was substitute the new york times tanks and the dnc your statements would be a hundred percent correct. as far as someone holding up a think tank report, the new york times is the gold standard, if
someone reads it in the new york times people think it is beyond reproach. my question is, are we going to be reading articles in the next couple of weeks about how i is your report is? those i agree that reporters -- as reporters we have an obligation only interviewed think tank scholars and potentially quote them in our stories to know what their financial connection is with the industry that they are talking about. we don't know that. we are quoting them as authorities and giving them a platform in our news stories without fully understanding their financial relationships. that can make our stories bias. we as a newspaper biased? the newspaper is a collection of -- a collection of people. if someone thinks of the new york times is slanted they are entitled to that perspective.
i think that we try to represent all points of view. we have been writing aggressively about hillary clinton and donald trump. it al people i am in opportunity reporter. i will take on the left, i will take on the right. liberal causes, conservative causes. tookook to my stories, i on a pa and the coal companies. i read about both sides. host: your piece along with your colleague, the explanation given ,or clinton charity donors explain what came about and what were the e-mails that were disclosed by conservative watchdog group who asked for e-mails? guest: what happened earlier this week, the judicial watch released an e-mail that it sued to get copies of which were e-mails of some clinton aides that showed when hillary clinton
was secretary of state that the clinton foundation had approached some of her aides at the state department to ask them to speak with an individual who is from nigeria of lebanese descent that have been a major donor to the clinton foundation. there was an individual that was associated with the clinton foundation and the clinton global initiative that contacted an aid to hillary and asked her to facilitate this connection so this gentleman could speak with state department officials. clinton was allowing the clinton foundation to user status to get access for donors, and potentially to get favors for donors. when those e-mails came out earlier this week, i was asked to help examine at situation and to determine whether or not there was any favoritism going
on there or special access. what we found so far and the stories are consistent from all the parties we spoke with yesterday, joe becker and others , four of us were working on this yesterday. what we found was that it looks like this individual from nigeria, it's hard to know whether or not this really happened. everyone is saying that he was simply trying to share information, him being of lebanese descent to the state department about an upcoming election in lebanon that he felt was relevant that the state department should know. he simply suck the help of someone that he knew from the clinton global initiative -- he the help ofated
someone he knew from the clinton global initiative to. that's what all the party said was happening. it doesn't seem that it -- inappropriate. got iny he never in fact connection with jeff feldman from the state department. it wasn't paid to play because he didn't get the access anyway. to saidparties we spoke that is what happened. at the newspaper, we have the obligation to dig into that quickly and the public deserves to know what was happening. it doesn't appear to be anything that consequential. there will also -- there will always be more e-mails to come. i will probably continue to read her e-mails for the x number of years. host: west virginia, independent caller. ask mr. lipton if use
looked into the clinton foundation and the clinton library. he looked into one part. what about all the money saudi arabia has given corporations and stuff. are you a democrat? guest: the clinton foundation, the new york times and the wall street journal, many publications have spent an amount of time donors and clintones of hillary and the foundation of bill clinton and the relationships. we have filled many pages of the newspaper with an examination. i have not participated on many of those stories.
we have invested a great deal of energy in trying to make sure that the public understands is relationships and any implications. there are a lot of valid questions about all of the corporate and foreign donations and whether or not it places a burden on hillary and bill clinton to try to help those companies and governments in a way that could potentially affect their activities relative to the government. those are valid questions. the clinton family recognizes that as well, that they need to make changes relative to the way the clinton foundation works. my own political perspective by ma registration -- i'm a registered independent. i am an equal opportunity reporter. you give me a good story and i will write about it. you can find eric lipton's
reporting on nytimes.com and you can follow him at twitter. thank you for your time. you can find the stories about corporate influence on the website as well. time.iate your up next a round table discussion on the state of the american , with dr.ob creation erica groshen and jim tankersley. we'll be right back.
people. more experts for our markets and more democracy for allies. >> at a session on how the founding fathers viewed trade. >> historically the u.s. was not a free trading nation for most of american history. the u.s. is in fact a tariff protected economy. this goes back to the constitution. >> an examination of the world trade organization. >> at the time it was being --otiated or it's smart sister nafta, 800 more pages of specific rules and regulations. would be different. when these were being negotiated, the youth -- the u.s. had official advisers 500 corporate advisors. >> watch our spotlight on trade deals saturday at 8:00 p.m.
eastern on c-span and c-span.org. the c-span radio app makes it easy to follow the 2016 election. it is free to download from the apple app store or google play. get audio coverage and up-to-the-minute scheduling information plus podcast times for a popular public affairs look in history program. stay up to date on all the election coverage. c-span's radio at mutual always have c-span on the go. washington journal continues. host: we are back roundtable discussion about the state of the american economy. we have with us dr. erica is the commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics, the beer that -- what is going on with the economy. and jim tankersley is correspondent with the washington poster take your policy questions this morning.
lines, underng the 24,000, if you been make between , and over 50,000. start calling in with your questions. what's happening in our economy? guest: we are continue to recover from the deepest depression. were quite robust this month. we were able to absorb all the entry into the labor market and we had job growth. we had population growth.
it was a good month. host: when you look at this number who are you including and who are you not including in that number? guest: the unemployed is unemployment rate is defined as a share of the labor force that is actively looking for work, does not have a job, is ready to work and has looked for work within the past four weeks. now, that defines what the unemployment rate is. in addition to the people are in the labor force for people who are out of the labor force. those folks are people who are in school, who are retired, who have family responsibilities and may be disabled. those are the folks who are of the age where they could be working that are not working. 4.9 percent. historically, how to set compare? guest: that is quite a low rate.
of the pastt recession, the unemployment rate was 10%. it is less than half of the rate that we had at the height of the last recession, it's come down dramatically. host: does it feel like it has come down dramatically? guest: yeah it does. not for everyone. there is the 5% that are looking for working cap find it. still a lot of people who are not working as much as they are like to be are earning as much as they would like to be, but compared to a few years ago, it a much better economy. we are's 22 see some wage growth -- we are starting to see some wage growth. the economy is not uniform across the country for everyone. in some patches of the economy,
some regions it is still bad. areas, likeig metro silicon valley it is booming. host: what brought this number down from a high of 10 to four .9% -- 4.9%? guest: we had a financial crisis that was very disrupt to business and to homeowners in particular. a lot of people around the country who are underwater on their homes, a lot of struggling to spend the money because of the pullback during time -- many, over people get out of the hole and they start to spend more again. there are also government
policies that economists will tell us how to the recovery. the president's stimulus package probably help to's accelerate the recovery at the beginning. there have been other things that have been done that have helped the economy. may be the federal reserve has kept interest rates vary low which is trying to stimulate economic to the. our monetary policy stimulates growth. of the recovery we see. host: let's get the caller's take on the economy. over 60 -- making over 50,000 year. we made a conscious effort to live behind are means. narrowed -- been married
40 years. we are not living large but i feel blessed. people don't want to her. i hear that all the time. they can't get to those jobs. a lot of them have mental health issues. doorsramps and signs on that said in case of help this is the person to call. this might be generational poverty. data thatou have any resembles what he was just talking about there?
let me step back to the unemployment rate generally. goodone number is a statistic and it is comparable internationally and historically to numbers we were producing in the 1940's. ratefficial unemployment had those virtues. one number will not tell you --s date of the entire label labor market. jim's point is very well taken put outn we -- we thousands of numbers and two of them are the headline numbers. talking aboutr is to some extent are discouraged workers. forcere not in the labor because they haven't looked for work in the last month because they are discouraged. that number has come down dramatically since the end at the recession. it is not all the way down to
where it was before. it's still about 200,000 people above where it was before. that's a pocket of slack that has not gone away. host: how many people are we talking about total? 600,000 people have given up looking for work. it used to be double that. before the recession it was 400. still 50% above where it used to be. one of the things the caller touched on is the idea that people blocked from getting to the unemployment -- the employment opportunities. he mentioned a local one. you cannot drive or get a bus to a job that could employ you. we see this going back to
regional timing. there are more opportunities in parts of the economy and it is sometimes in people's best interest to move that a lot of times we don't. that's another reason why the overall unemployment rate does not come down. have as much mobility across the country as we might like for an optimal amount of unemployment. ideally we would follow the job. of thejust a feature economy we have. guest: i would throw in also our characterize the situation. there are other parts of the department of labor that are focused on getting help to people. i would encourage people to look at the services offered by the employment training in their area that might help host: relieve these problems. maryland your next.
theer: my comment was american people's focus a lot on , theyployment numbers know whether the neighbors have incomes coming in -- income coming in. the headline in the wall street journal yesterday talked about productivity.s in and how important the numbers , when hundredmind percent employment is not a sustainable combination. there is too much focus on the unemployment number and not enough on productivity. it is productivity growth
and growth that has slowed, not productivity itself. we are still one of the most productive countries in the world. improvement in people's standards of living is productivity growth. that is one of the reason it is important for us to measure it well. guest: there is a lot of .ompeting theories out there the mechanics of it are we have low overall economic growth relative to what we have had historically. still pretty good job creation. we are hiring a lot of people to create a relatively low output growth. output is wesub --
don't have as much growth. whether technology is not integrating and away we had hoped it would, whether there are some series that land low down -- slow down because we take all the low hanging fruit -- of gains of to algae, technology. there are lots of possibilities out there right now. it is one of the important mysteries of the american economy. host: for our viewers who have questions about the economy or want to let us know where you .ive, if you make under 25,000 i want to show the viewers in the next statistic, the 2016
pace of job growth is slightly slower in 2015. what are we looking at here? what we are looking at is results from the payroll survey. the last numbers we showed you had unemployment rate. to get this rate you have to talk to families and find out how everybody in the family is doing a we have a survey of 60,000 surveys that we talk to every month. at the same time, we have a separate survey and we talked to firms. we asked them how many people on your payroll. we can cover one third of the workforce. that's a very robust survey, over 500 thursday -- 500,000 workforce they tell how many people on there.
-- on their payroll. month the number came in at a robust 255,000 new jobs. that brought up the average for 2016 to 186,000, that is still below what we were seeing and 2015. it may not be surprising that we are getting closer and closer to full employment. we are climbing a mountain and watch you get closer to the top the pace of recovery slows. it also means the opportunity to reduce some of the slack in other ways and move people from . in-time to full-time jobs some ways it is a necessary condition for other parts of recovery. when an economist talk
about fully, -- employment it doesn't mean that everybody is working. it is the optimum level of employment for the level of the economy. the last time we saw strong wage 1990'sin the mid-to late it was because we had full employment. low unemployment rates and everybody's wages went up. a lot of economists believe that keying at that level is the to getting middle-class incomes, lower wage incomes, everyone's incomes up over time. i would say that if what we are seeing here is a slight slowdown because we are approaching full employment that is a good sign for the american worker. it would be better if growth but there are other things happening in the global economy that might be slowing down job growth. overall, the hope that with the low unemployment rate in the
mirroring for women we are starting to see more benefits of recovery is strong. i think the kind of hope that workers are may be starting a little bit to feel in their own minds, but not everybody. host: matthew in maryland. studenti am a full-time and a part-time worker. i have a comment and a question. i was just looking at an article --t had a record 94 americans not in the labor force -- labor force in may. my question is what are 100 million americans doing that they are not working and also if
this economy is going to recover, why does the national debt continue to increase? guest: what are the people who are out of the labor force doing? many of them, like you, are in school but not working. for those folks who are in school and not working, that is an important part of what is going on. we are seeing that fewer students are now working then used to in previous years. that is some part of the decline in participation is that are young people are staying in school longer and less likely to work and focusing on school work. the other trends that we have that the baby boomers are a huge demographic level are now retiring. as we reach retirement age, and
that includes me, my siblings and friends are starting to retire, that means that a larger share of our population will be retired. that's a very important part of the demographic. underlies the decrease in labor force participation. in the last month we saw a pickup -- a -- in labor force participation. it is better than the declining pattern we were seeing before. host: what does that mean for policy makers? if baby boomers are leaving? guest: baby boomers leaving means a lot of things. we have coming pressures upon programs, safety net social security and medicare. this is one of the reasons debt levels are increasing because we
have increasing levels of liability on debt levels. i would also point out that one of the things that the exodus gives politicians i miss leading talking point. at least one major candidate out there right now, the donald trump campaign likes to hold out this number of americans out of the labor force as a sign of something bag with entitlements. it is -- yes there are people who are sidelined or not working by all other indications in previous economies would have been working and should have been working, there are very
concerning things about labor force participation. but the idea that we should get everybody back in the labor should be working and that is crazy. it's a mills -- misleading way to talk about economics, but it is not a way to get people fired up. what we will show viewers cap had to say when he was at the detroit economic club. we have the lowest labor force participation rates in four decades. 58% of the african-american youth are either outside of the labor force or not employed. one in five american households do not have a single member in the labor force, not a single member of the household.
these are real unemployment problems. the 5% figure is one of the biggest hoaxes and american modern politics. by tellingme start you all little bit about the bureau of labor statistics. it is strictly nonpartisan and apolitical. our job is to divide the facts and only the facts, which is why am glad to have jim tankersley joining me here today. market and economy prices are working conditions. 2500 employees across the country that are highly trained, professional career in contests, statisticians, i.t. professionals, basically just a bunch of data nerds totally counting was going
on so that policymakers, business makers and families can make the best possible decisions. ift is what the nation needs we are going to have robust -- we need for everybody to make good decisions. we have to be nonpartisan. the data we produce is so vital people need to be able to depend on it. our data has to be accurate. they have to be objective. we don't want people to think that we are biased and we follow includingrocedures full transparency to make sure they are objective. they have to be relevant and answer the questions people need answered. they have to get to people in time to make their decisions and they have to be accessible in the figurative and literal sense.
we have been doing this for a long time and i am proud to say i think we are the best agency in the country and therefore the world. daniel in texas? caller: i am wondering whether there is any validity to what how in ah says about saturated economy, eventually what has to happen is that activities once taken for granted will then have to be compensated. i am thinking like a family that is bothering to raise children -- somebody raises good children and make good grades in school, maybe they need to be compensated and that should go towards productivity. host: jim? there is this question of
what happens, especially in a not far but not particularly right around the corner future where automation takes away enormous swaths of american jobs. what do we do? that is what part of the theory is, that maybe we will send money to people for raising children. maybe we will raise more money for jobs that are less compensated now because we value human service. it might be that you pay extra to go to a restaurant where a human waits on you and therefore human waitstaff get paid for because that is so nominal. we are not sure. change.w and evolve and there are various proposals that deal with some of these questions. i think the good news is we are not about to automate away tens of millions of jobs tomorrow but it is something to think about.
host: dave in new york, good morning to you. caller: quick question. i have seen people on tv talking about criticisms about how we measure the unemployment and just two quick things i want to ask about. how do they differentiate between full-time and part-time jobs? do they count that as two jobs? also, on the last numbers that came in, what is the birth-death rate model. also, how does unemployment differ from 1970? thank you very much. ram orwe will try to those. i may need help. have we changed the way we measure?
not since the 1940's. that one is simple. is birth death model something that we use in the payroll survey. we ask companies how many jobs they had this month compared to last month. we don't have information about births of companies and often it is very difficult to get in touch with the company that has died. so we have -- we need to factor in births and deaths. so the way we do that is by a statistical model that is based thehe past and we adjust employment growth that we see in the continuing firms by what we expect the births and deaths
would have been in that month. we do that on a monthly basis. it is fully transparent. you can see the model we use. every year, we actually get the truth from administrative data. we benchmark the data and correct it for any discrepancies we might have between what the model produced and what we actually used. we have made numbers of changes over the years to the birth death model. we will probably continue doing that. >> full-time and part-time? how do you define that? in the household survey, we ask people, is your job full-time or part-time? ,hen we count you as employed if you have even worked just one hour, but we do measure how many people work part-time,
full-time, and we actually ask the part-time people, would you rather have a full-time job? host: if you are just looking at the unemployment rate -- slack, someay have distress in the labor market because you have fewer people that have full-time jobs than would prefer to have them. so we have a measure for that called people who are part-time for economic reasons. that number went very high during the recession and has come down most of the way but not all of the way. that is another part of slack. host: let's hear from kevin next, in long island. caller: good morning. i have a question that i have been trying to figure out for a long time. how can we as a domestic economy, have zero interest
growth, and full employment all at the same time with inflation just basically not existing. the i am wondering is concentration on you three, which includes, as you just mentioned, the part-time data, has always been traditionally focused on? because of our particular situation now since 2008, you six is probably a more realistic evaluation as to where the evaluation -- where the economy is in the united states since the collapse of 2008. it just seems as though despite of the fact that the bureau of labor statistics is an apolitical institution, i accept
the, however the data that bureau has been releasing over this entire. , since our seven or eight year. , has done nothing to reinforce the idea that we are trying to get back to the way we were. responseot to get a and get in more calls. guest: thank you for bringing that up. one set of numbers that we produce is a full range of labor underutilization measures that we call you 136 -- that we call , u6 being the most inclusive. that number right now is 9.7%, so that is close to double the
official unemployment rate of 4.9%. but if you look at the way they track each other over time throughout the business cycle, it is very similar. u6 is always going to be larger 3.anu they tell a pretty similar story. we produce them because we are -- to answer different questions, you need a different number. if you want to measure the total number of distress in the labor market, you might want to use u6 . for some questions, that is the right answer. host: robert in missouri, good morning. >> thank you for taking my comment. 1955, less than 2% of men of
working age were unemployed in america. today, that figure stands at about one in three. age, 25men of working to 54. if one or both of your guests could comment on this statistic which i believe is a nightmare for american families and a disaster for our country. host: go ahead, jim. guest: is that right? one in three? guest: no. that: it is a trend unemployment for prime age males is higher than it was in the 50's. for some reasons you can think intuitively, and some reasons are policy related. 1950.omen work then in women have more of the skills,
as a whole, that the knowledge economy requires than men do. they have a higher degree of college attainment. that entry of women in the waysorce has, in some pushed up the unemployment rate for men. other things are going on though. the huddling out of middle-class jobs has affected men quite badly in some particular pockets of the economy. has, the incarceration rate affected men. we have a lot of young, particularly african-american men in prison of working age and that is -- that shows up in these statistics and that is a reason why labor force participation is down. host: what about the type of jobs where we are seeing growth?
ofs is from the july report health care professional and business services leading job growth while mining declines. we are seeing a trend as the economy works its way through the recession and postrecession where certain jobs are declining and others are increasing. guest: that is true. what you are seeing with mining is the effects of low oil prices on the fracking areas of the has been a big hit to really huge jobs held by men across the great plains and other parts of the fracking belt. jobs lost over the last year, those are in many cases middle-class family wage jobs that you could do without a college degree and that is a big hit to those families. this is one of those instances
where a bar chart can show some personal pain and that is one of them. the loss of good paying jobs. construction is up and construction has also stated a pretty good wage, not so much as the mining wages but also a very good wage. have as much construction activity in the early part of the recovery because of the housing bust. in these stats we can see real pain and opportunity. groshen, you looked puzzled. why is that? guest: the caller was referring to not the unemployment rate but the non-employment rate which is quite different. labor force participation rate, which is share of men, people in this case men, who are either , ining or looking for work
july 2016 is 71.7%. that is not unemployment. that is the participation rate. there is a big difference. the unemployment rate is 4.6%. what the caller is talking about is more of a decision to work or not. a large part of that is the , ing population but also older times, we didn't have as much of a safety net. some of the people who are not participating are people who we, as a society have decided that we are going to support in some other way. host: we will go to will in eugene, oregon. about: i have a question -- for the bureau of labor and
statistics, what is your definition of small businesses? guest: let's see. that is a funny thing. across the statistical agencies, we have a group that tries to make common definitions across agencies so you can compare such information. small and large businesses is one of the areas where we have all been struggling. it means a different thing in different industries. some industries, a small business is much larger than on other industries. pointinghe caller is to the fact that classification can be an issue and this is one of the places where it is a little trickier. we don't have a standard definition. it really depends on the situation we are talking about.
are we talking about small establishments or small enterprises? i encourage you to be an educated reader when you look at any statistic and think about how people are going to be defining it. host: let's go to north carolina, belinda. guest: i am glad someone is finally getting to some of our issues. i have two concerns. i'm listening to all these numbers but if we can't use our numbers to solve our problems, they are useless. i read a fewern is years back -- it is probably still going on -- that the working age public, there are 93 million unemployed of working age. that is my first question i would like to address.
has anybody read that? and what are they basing that on? she mentioned the unemployed jobsand -- people wanting and part-time workers being around 9.7%. and then the actual unemployment rate is 4.6, i think? 4.9? if you would add those two together, we are at an unemployment rate of about 14.6, maybe. people sayve heard that, tie those numbers together to say the unemployment rate is a lot higher. what are your thoughts? guest: the number of unemployed -- july, 2016, was 7.8 million. not 93 million. this is our estimate of the
number of people who did not work in the past month -- in the past week, but who did look for work and were ready to take work during that passed -- past month. sofind a wealth of numbers people can add them up and use them for various purposes. we can't force anybody to use numbers and we can't force them to use them properly but we do try to help anyone who wants to use our numbers call us -- you can go to our website, and you can e-mail us, call us, and we can take you through all of the numbers that you might be interested in looking at and help you to use them properly. i want to encourage people to do that. if you have any questions, we work for you.
e-mail us and we can answer your questions and directed to the number that will help you make the right decisions. guest: the fixed number also includes people in the u 3 number. it already includes the 4.9. there is one hill and we go up another hill over that and another hill over that. it is altogether. host: jim touched on this before, but wage growth. earnings are real unchanged for the lowest earners. what does that feel like in the economy? guest: it is largely unchanged for the middle class. it feels like stagnation, particularly over this century. since the end of that which 90's, youm in the
include the small uptick in the 2000s that was erased by the recession and then now, the slow recovery, although there is some evidence that wage growth is picking up. it doesn't feel like that people feel like they are working just as hard as they used to but they are not getting ahead. this is something i write about a lot. i think this is animating our politics in this country. a lot of workers are not moving ahead in the way they expect to. years,ver the past two earnings growth has outpaced inflation so what does that mean for policymakers? what is it mean for the federal reserve? guest: the federal reserve has already raised interest rates once. we are still very close to zero. now the question is how fast will they raise rates again. there is not a lot of evidence
that we are about to see runaway inflation or even hot inflation. the fed theoretically has a 2% inflation target and has undershot that target consistently so you might think the case would be that overshooting would be better that raising rates to head off overshooting of that -- i think we will oversee -- at sea, over the next year, higher interest rates but that will be a function of what else happens. brexit happened and there were all these threats to markets and growth and they just held off. so events have a funny way of messing with the plans. host: peter in michigan, good morning. caller: i would like to point out the fact that the commissioner failed to answer one of the questions from the previous caller from maryland. what is the definition of a full-time employee?
the definition is someone who works 35 hours a week or more. expanding on that, that in 2008 in the month of december, the last months of the bush administration, there were 100 23 and a half or 123 million full-time employees in the labor market. since then, we have added $9 trillion to our debt. we have gone from $10 trillion to $19 trillion and as of june of this year, just a month and a halfago, we had 124 and a or 125 million full-time employees in the neighbor work -- in the labor force. the number of full-time employees has gone up less than 2%. the problem is this. the full-time employees are the
people who pay the income tax so we haven't had the growth of full-time employees as we have -- as has been painted out to us by the media and the press and the pundits and the policymakers. we have stagnated the full-time employee workforce and yet we have almost doubled our debt. the callero thank for reminding me about that question. we define a full-time employee as someone who works more than 35 hours at their job. creation, whenob the recession -- when we started to create jobs after the end of , at recession disproportionate number of that job creation was part time. that is not surprising. share is new jobs that
are part time -- it has been declining slowly throughout the course of this recovery. tois not all the way down where it was before but it has been trending down. it goes along with the fact that a lot of -- a disproportionate number of the new jobs that we created early on in the recovery were also tempt jobs -- temp jobs. when they are trying to decide if they need this worker, they might hire someone part-time or from a temp the -- agency. as demand for their product grows, they tried to convert them to full-time. we have seen that kind of transition. host: robert in north charleston, south carolina. i am curious -- my question centers around the privatization of prisons and i
am curious of the total sum in income that are generated through the prison system? i am also curious, what is the actual unemployment rate of minorities? do you get that specific? guest: i have to call attention to the division of labor amongst the statistical agencies and we don't measure output. employment, prices and that kind of thing. host: what about unemployment for minorities? the unemployment rate for blacks in july 20 16th is -- hispanic or, for latino, 5.4%.
all of those higher than the average unemployment rate -- asian is lower. they have historically been higher. they increased for hispanics and for blacks, they increased more than they did for whites over the course of the recession and have come down most of the way but not fully to where they were before. host: what is going on in those communities? caller: it is unfortunate. we are still seeing not as much work as we would like for those workers. you have more workers who are not able to find jobs. the recovery -- i have seen evidence of -- the recovery has seen job growth that has been better for white workers and better for wage growth for white hispanicexcept in some subgroups in the last year and a half or so that have started to
see some real wage growth. there is still a gap between whites and nonwhite workers and in general, you see these communities still feel left behind. host: becky is next, michigan. caller: i wanted to talk about people that are on welfare. we moved out here quite a few years ago and we didn't know the area. we bought a house that was right in the middle of an area where a lot of welfare people live. i have always been critical of those people because they always seem to know every single thing that there is to know about what they can get and stuff like that and they don't seem serious about anything and i learned a lot. i am still learning. why don't they work? ory either don't have a car their car is broken or they have
a flat tire or they don't have money for gas. it is they work. the work comes from the state p floors orll mo pick up stuff on the side of the road. a girl i know has not found work for two years now. in two worked two days years because they don't have anything for them to do. host: we talked earlier about discouraged workers. let me get to steve in illinois and then we will get some final thoughts. my question was where did you get your funding for your numbers? guestmething the previous anyhad on -- was there
outside energies -- entities that gave you these numbers? earlier whatlained the bureau is, a government agency, independent. how do you go about your research? our budget for 2016 is $609 million. that is appropriated by congress for us and i would say that is an incredible bargain. i think that is three dollars per u.s. citizen. host: as we wrap up, you can go to bls.gov to learn more about the agency. jim, what are you watching for? caller: i am interested in this productivity question. guest: i think it is fascinating what is going to happen in the years ahead.
both for worker wages, because in the past there has been a relationship between productivity and wage growth, and in particular for what it means for growth. we need to figure out what is happening and i am very interested in that story. host: so what numbers do you go to? guest: we were talking about a recent productivity release. the numbers reported quarterly are very important to us. also, we watch the jobs report every month because it has wage numbers, data on not just how many jobs but where the jobs are being created, these are important things to watch. it is one of my favorite days of the month, jobs day. there is so much good economic discussion that comes out of it.
pulling insides out of these new numbers. host: you can find a lot of interesting graphics that people viaout the a tweet -- tweet. to learn you want about those numbers, the fastest way possible, sign up for our twitter account. host: i will tell everybody. guest: you can also send us questions that way. host: thank you both for your time. take a shortto break and when we come back we want your thoughts on the report from the justice department about policing in baltimore and what it means for zero-tolerance policing that we have seen across the country. there are the phone numbers. eastern central, mountain pacific, and that line for law enforcement. we'll be right back.
>> sunday night on q&a, a documentary film instructor talks about his students award-winning documentaries. some have been granted as winners. he teaches in oklahoma. >> i am not the kind of teacher that will look at something that is not very good and go, oh that is nice. i will say that is not working and eventually, every single one of my kids makes a better piece than they did in the beginning. kids to do the really well, they internalize this so i no longer have to say
it to them. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> at c-span.org you can watch our public affairs and political programming any time at your convenience on your desktop, laptop, or mobile device. go to our home page and click on the video library search bar. you can type in the name of the speaker, a bill, or event topic. like on the program you would like to watch. or refine your search with our many search tools. if you don't want to search the library, our homepage has many current programs ready for your immediate viewing such as today's washington journal or .he events we covered that day c-span.org is a public service of your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues.
host: we are going to round out today's conversation with all of you looking at the justice department's report yesterday on policing in baltimore. all stemming from the death of freddie gray. we will get your thoughts on what you learned from the justice department, the baltimore mayor and the police there saying they are vowing reform. that is the headline the usa today has put on its story. the report claims officers routinely conducted unlawful stops targeting lack residents in low income neighborhoods. gupta said the strategy had little impact on crime solving while severely damaging community relations. the division and city are negotiating a decree of proposed reform coming out of this.
for lawhave a line enforcement because we want to hear from you about zero-tolerance policing over the years. for law7-0002 enforcement and all others divide the lines regionally. we begin with tom in clinton, maryland. your thoughts? caller: good morning. i think it is time for the governor to do something. he is supposed to be the head of the state. that -- to make a woman undress on the side of the road and put their hands in the ladies angle cavity is disgraceful. this sounds like desktop of techniques. host: you don't think you've heard enough from the governor? what can the governor do? caller: whatever the governor can do.
i don't know if he can declare martial law but he needs to do something even if you can't do anything physically. he can change the tempo. host: ok. eric in georgia, good morning to you. morning.ood it seems like this is an isolated incident. department, they were invented to patrol the black neighborhoods. black police were not even allowed to take guns until the early 60's. way they use these laws and fines to rob low income neighborhoods. nine out of 10 white people will
have something to break the law, but only three of the black people. they disrespect you when they stop you and when they stop you, they become combatant. they make up charges, such as taillight out, you didn't come to a complete stop, all of this on the pretense of charging this person with something. it is racism. this is what the police were designed for in the united states. in georgia.lice i looked up the history of it. finger.led him itchy down 13ctually shot unarmed black people and this is what he was famous for. host: i think you are getting at
this zero-tolerance policing in the new york times report. departments across the country including those in atlanta, new york and tampa florida have rolled back no holds barred. the approach grew out of the war on drugs in the 90's, and record levels of murders as departments sought to use renewed vigor by patrol officers to prevent major crimes. data from police departments around the country said officers using the zero-tolerance strategy focused their arrest on african-american men in poor neighborhoods while ignoring the same offenses in wealthier white neighborhoods. from 2008 to 20 11, officers issued eight citations or riding bicycles on sidebar -- on sidewalks. 2015 in nearby bedford which is
primarily african-american and latino. officers often win awards and promotions based on the number of arrests they make including for minor offenses. we want to talk to law enforcement as well. .heridan in columbus, ohio what are your thoughts? lineage backce my to hundred years, i am anglo-saxon. there is still a latent racism in this country. i see it every day. night with a friend of mine who is african-american and he has been stopped. you've got to- these the approach of police -- what they think. it is not what they do, it is what they think in their head about this stuff.
there is a good book on racism in this country that just came out a month or two ago. host: i'm not sure what you are referencing. what is the point? caller: the point of it is to point out what i just said. that there is still racism in this country. i understand. let me read more from the new york times about the report out of baltimore. while officers are given wide arrest,on on whether to they are often ordered by sergeants and lieutenants to confront every violation they see, a practice the justice department said was called "clearing streets." the police confronted people hanging out outside shops and checking for open warrants even though the officers lacked the legal authority to do so.
harry in baltimore, good morning to you. what you think? caller: the big thing that the police -- the governor at the time was a man who said there was zero-tolerance. i am a 72-year-old man and they .ad me locked up in jail nobody else -- that is what is destroying the poor black people . o'malley keeps telling them they are going up. do this for you, do that for you. host: ok. larry in south dakota, good morning. caller: the only thing i wanted to bring up was that freddie
gray deal. ,he morning of that, i get up on the morning of that particular death of freddie gray, there was a video that actually showed freddie gray being told to come over -- the cops were waving to him down the street. freddie gray came up. he was very healthy, and he came up and he was talking to these officers that were on bikes and then, that video stopped. -- thet thing you saw next video you saw was freddie handcuffed, his neck looks like it is broken at that point. they stuck him in that van and took him away. there is a cover-up, there is a video of him being super healthy as he walked over to those policeman.
there is something being covered up. host: that is larry in south dakota. the justice department issuing this report to the city of baltimore after the freddie gray situation. the justice department did the same thing in ferguson, missouri. saying in north ferguson they were complaining that 65% of the arrests were black people than they found out that 80% of the population was black so those were his thoughts on twitter. the wall street journal reports that baltimore police agreeing to an overhaul their. -- overhaul there. stephanie rawlings blake saying she anticipates the cost will range from 5 million to 10 million a year. the overhaul is expected to take years for this city of 620,000
people which has a current operating budget of 2.6 billion. baltimore has been represented by lawyers including jamie gore luck, a attorney general under bill clinton. to $1200 has paid up an hour for the firm's services which are capped at 2.2 million. tom in our banner, illinois. go ahead. worked at the college here in their police department for a few years and one of the things that i noticed was that the older officers who come throughwhen they went the pti class here at the university of illinois noticed that during the training, in every scenario it was always worry about if a person has a
gun. that was the thing that was enforced the most. no conflict resolution, no finding out what the problem may very well be. assumed thatically a person you walk up to is armed and ready to take your life at any time. i understand that it is a high risk business what i am sorry. the law of probability says that is not going to be every in inns where somebody is going to want to take your life. that seems to be the thing that young officers are extremely interested in, dragging their guns out and waving them around. thank you very much. host: blake in leland, mississippi caller:. hello america. cop the son of a chicago and he just explained to me one
day why he had to leave the fire -- police department and join the fire department. because he couldn't stand how they were treating black people. they were literally killing go thatnd if he didn't way, they would be his backup. they would literally be racist right in front of him. that the police department, they were made to suppress the black neighborhoods and small communities. half of the revenues are made up of like -- black communities. you have a criminal justice system that is on the stock market where you have private prisons. up, so theyd to go -- you have a system designed with no borders, so you have a
system where you have a legal drugs coming in and no borders but come on. it is all working together to oppress black people. host: ron in new jersey, what do you think? i want to go back to the rodney king incident. we forget that when you look at that video, there had to be at least 25-30 police officers on the scene. i think only 4-6 were indicted. these 20 or 30 officers were there watching a crime being committed and are out of the discussion. , is it a into question fallacy when they say most police officers are good police officers? were all those good officers
those other 18-20 that saw a rodney king being brutalized? were they good police officers? tot is something we have think about when we say most police officers are good police officers because if you have a colleague that you know is committing a crime, and you don't make that police officer accountable, then how good is the force? how good is the majority of the officers? we really need to re-look. the justice department's report into the policing in baltimore, the washington times says this about their investigation -- six of the officers involved and some of the more -- in some of the more egregious actions already have been fired. among the findings, officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop community members with less than 4% of pedestrian stops resulting in an arrest or issuing of a citation.
were residents disproportionately targeted accounting for 84% of the stops while they resent -- they represented 63% of the city's population and accounting for 90 percent of the people stopped. was stopped 30 times over four years without ever being arrested. patrol officers stopped and questioned the group of black men toward them to disperse. after the officer protested, they had no valid reason to stop the group. the sergeant responded, "make something up." escalated encounters often ended up in unwarranted and violent confrontations. departmentfound the failed to adequately support its officers with staffing and resources. of a 15rt is the result
month investigation that included hundreds of interviews with residents, officers, attorneys, elected officials and right along. ride-alongs. robert in tuscaloosa, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning greta. i've been watching c-span for years and here is what i believe. of african descent, never drink to drop -- drunk it drop, i believe some white people want to have a race war with the blacks and kill of the young ones because they are are going toics take over so they get the blacks out of the way. to warthese people go with that people?
they kill other people of color. they are prone to killing people of color and they are trying to wipe out the young black men in this country and then take on the hispanics. host: those are roberts thoughts in alabama. we are giving all of you your opportunity to call in and let us know what you think about the report and also raising questions about this idea of that hasrance policing been the strategy of police forces across the country in the united states. there has been efforts to do away with that zero-tolerance policing, but what do you think about it giving the report -- given the report. law enforcement, want to hear from you at (202) 737-0002. dave in california, you are next. whyer: i was wondering
every time you hear something that happens to a black person -- 250 blackshear were killed and 600 whites were killed not on one episode on the news you hear anything about it. and also i was wondering why that is. host: where did you read those statistics? caller: i got it on google. that is an actual fact but you never see it. we have a kid killed out here be to death by two police officers. insight -- when you just show one side of the story on black people get riled up because they think no whites are being stopped and that is not true. host: david, you look at the justice department's report in cities like baltimore and ferguson? but youi have seen that
have got to let the police do their jobs. don't charge a police officer. if you are a police officer and somebody is coming at you, don't charge them. host: hang on the line, i want you to see this. are more white people killed by police? yes but no. died in june. police received a report of a man walking with a rifle but when they arrived they found him speeding by in a pickup truck. police to aold led nearby gas station and exited his car. the department framed it as a suicide by cop. his family insisted video from the body camera worn by the officers involved be release. noble's friends and family gathered for days at the gas station where he was killed, some waving confederate flags and some chanting white lives matter.
many across the nation find themselves asking a similar question today since two recent police shootings of black men have sparked a nationwide protest. does the available data show more white americans are being killed by police officers? says in 2015 the washington post launched a database to track fatal police shootings and the project continues. as of sunday, one hundred 502 people have been shot and killed by police officers since january 1. 732 were white and 381 were black. andas data scientists policing experts often note, comparing how often white people are killed by police to how many black people are killed is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population. according to most recent census data there are 160 million more
white people in america than there are black people. 62% butople make up only 49% of those are who are killed -- those who are killed by police. loretta lynch brooks bill, florida? good morning. caller: good morning. like to comment, and frankly this report i think is a sham. did andhat baltimore thatattorney general, black woman, she is so biased. host: are you talking about the prosecutor? caller: she should be fired. woman should not be on the
job. be arrested and brought to trial because i think this is a travesty of justice. i believe that black lives being encouraged by george soros and this administration. to let them get away with what they are doing, they are encouraging lawlessness and disrespect. allowedople that were to carry out and destroy the , and justltimore here say, go ahead, let them destroy notr own places, it is just
-- this should not be encouraged. host: i heard your point, you are referring to marilyn mosby. she is the maryland state attorney. you can find more information on the website. michael in new york, hi michael. caller: i think there is a fit -- a solution to this. alldon't we just remove policing from predominantly black neighborhoods, seeing as blacks kill blacks in far greater number than police kill blacks. , try remove the police that for a while and see what their attitude is against the police. host: benjamin, battle creek michigan. caller: good morning. this is on the state of policing in the whole united states. a generation that refuses to be held accountable.
if they get pulled over for speeding, they are going to throw out the race car at any chance they get because they have seen it work across the country. obama empowers black lives matter which was based on novels meant. if ferguson didn't go up in flames to you think the baltimore riots would have happened? obama gives them permission by not holding these people accountable for tearing down their cities. it is just going to get worse the more this goes on. host: i also want to show you this from daily caller. numbers show that most baltimore cops are minorities. so minorities make up most of the police force in baltimore. don in california, you are on the air. c-span.thanks to blackalling to let these and hispanic and native american
people in america, let them know that they are the jews of the people,d the american all these white people are against us. israelites. we are the true people of the bible and the whole system is twisted around to where people think that the jews in israel, the real jews are black. host: thomas in stratford, new hampshire, police officer there. what do you think of zero-tolerance policing? are you there? caller: good morning. i am calling because i feel that unfortunately, policing has -- there are more still a lot of racists.
what these officers should remember is what i was told when i went through the academy. the head person at the academy told us, the firstthe head persy told us the first day remember, what you are looking for his compliance. you are not looking to hassle and harass, it is serve and protect. you are there to serve and protect the people. of course there are different circumstances. your bit target on your back for everyone who doesn't like a police officer. internal, external, they have a tough job every day. the thing is that it is all about attitude. instead of escalating situations, we are taught to deescalate and only use profit -- proper course -- force. they get really stressed when they have a