tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 11, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
trump administration. as always we will take your calls. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good sunday morning to you. today is december the 11th. here are some of your headlines. thetillerson is reportedly leading pick for secretary of state. some lawmakers are questioning the choice because of his close relationship with russia. for intoy is called whether russia interfered with the presidential election. labor unions are ready for a fight with the white house. that is the issue we are starting with this money. we want to hear from union members. what is your message for president elect donald trump?
if you live in the eastern or central time zones, call us at (202) 748-8000. if you live in the mountain or pacific time zone, (202) 748-8001. you can also send us your thoughts on twitter. you can leave a comment on our facebook page. this fight between president-elect donald trump and the labor unions started after what appeared to be a victory last week. he had negotiated a deal with a factory in indiana to keep jobs from moving to mexico. that deal became controversial after these comments from a union leader in indiana. here is the story in the cannotgton."'-- "washington post." the story says that chuck jones, the president of united fuel workers, which represents
carrier employees have felt optimistic when donald trump announced he had reached a deal until thee 1100 jobs union leader heard that only 730 of the projected jobs wednesday and 550 union members would lose their livelihoods after all. jones hoped donald trump would explain himself. when he got up there, and for whatever reason he lied in front of a crowd of about a crowd of 150 supervisors. donald trump said they were heping over 1100 people questioned whether donald trump was inflating the victory. information from the bureau of labour statistics that shows the level of the
union membership in america. union membership in 2015 was inut half the rate it was 1983. you can see the decline from about 20% in 1983 to just over 10% in 2015. that is a union membership rates. that data comes from the bureau of labor statistics. union members are about evenly split between the private and public sector. andcan see the dark blue light blue bars showing you the number of private sector union members versus public sector union members. there are about 7.6 million in the private sectors and 4.4 1983.n fewer than in public-sector union membership
is about 7.2 million. that is more than 1983. what is your message to president-elect donald trump? we are opening the phone is to union members only. we will start with sarah in california. sarah is not there unfortunately. we will move on to this story that was in politico. donald trump launches a war on unions. the story says that the war is on. labor leaders spent almost $100 million campaigning against donald trump, they said they would give him the chance to deliver on his pro-worker agenda after the election. the cease-fire has eroded. donald trump announced his choice for secretary of the department of labor as fast food executive andrew president, a whoic -- puzder, a critic
floated the idea of automating restaurants to lower costs of labor. ofald trump won the election the help -- with the help of union households in the midwest. so far the story says donald trump is making the decision to stand with or against an easy. assembling a pro-business cabinet that could clash with unions at every turn. let's try again with the phone my. sharon from illinois. good morning to you. caller: i know it is popular to be a right to work state. years it20 years or 30 has not been popular to be in a union. i am a union member. i think everybody should be a union member, to organize better.
i really think that donald trump liked put a commercial out they used to have in the 1970's for everybody to look for the union label, like the shirt workers ladies started in the 1970's. he should make a popular commercial and try to popularize unions. that is my only comment. can i ask you -- all right, sharon is gone. let's go to jesse in arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. host: how are you? caller: fine. how are you? host: i am good. what is your question? caller: i cannot say it's on the phone. i was a union man for 42 years. we had a strong union back then around new york and new jersey.
[indiscernible] breaker.nion all of his hotels, he fought the unions like crazy not to pay them money. he is playing games with the people's minds about what he did. when you do that in the union, you have a lot of cities in southern states that have right to work law, which their job could be killed. which union were you a member of? serving awas with -- and 805. host: that is jesse from arkansas. joining us now is the author of that political story from a few
minutes ago. he is here to talk about donald trump's war on unions as he called it. good morning. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. host: why are you calling this a war? how dramatic that the next four years be between labor unions and donald trump? guest: after the election you saw major labor leaders say they were open to working with trump. this was someone who used a lot of their rhetoric of bringing jobs back to america, particularly the manufacturing sector. after the election, there was a chance to work collaboratively. since then it seems like the gloves are off. in particular this selection of andrew puzder as labor secretary has major labor leaders campaigning against donald trump, saying this is someone who wants to dismantle the labor agenda. there is almost nothing good they have to say about puzder in
general. host: give us a background on him. what do we know about his potential policy stances and his history with regards to labor unions and worker rights? guest: this is someone who has great support in the business community. associations were pushing for him to become labor secretary. one issue in particular, the importantge, which is to labor unions. he is not opposed to the minimum wage hike, but he has said it could lead to job losses and automation. on automation, he has floated the idea of automating more of his last food restaurants. those things, minimum wage and automation could get under the skin of labor unions. host: what about some of the regulations the obama administration had put forward under the department of labor,
such as overtime regulations? what is he expected to do when it comes to those issues? guest: for overtime in particular, it is not a particularly rosy picture for its. laborless of which secretary donald trump ends up with, that is likely not to go into effect the way we see it now. the same goes for other regulations that could be fought by the trump administration or overturned. things we're likely to see, more pro-business environment. host: give us a little background. you mentioned the selection of andrew president as labor secretary -- puzder as labor secretary was controversial for unions, but this was a fight that begin growing before the election. after theediately
election you saw a conciliatory tone. of the richard tromp openio tweeting that he is to working with the president-elect on pro-worker issues. there was a moment where there was an openness to collaboration. thisld say that is over at point. the choice of labor secretary and betsy devos as labor secretary has the teachers union up in arms and so i think the more he moves forward on this ofnda and with a series tweets against a local union .eader has added to that host: you mentioned that there was some initial effort towards conciliation perhaps. many union members voted for
donald trump. he is someone who has been strongly anti-trade. talk about that disconnect. i think you look at some of these states like michigan, ohio, is a venue, where hillary clinton -- pennsylvania, where hillary clinton was not able to generate the sort of union household support that barack obama and democratic candidates have had in those states for decades. the fact that donald trump was performing a little better benefited him in those places. i think he goes back to his rhetoric around jobs. people are taking him at his word. the disconnect is that so far it lookingke the way he is to create jobs will not be something that comes through labor unions. those are the early indications for his cabinet members. his statements on twitter directly at a union leader. that is ted hesson, labor
and employment reporter at politico. guest: thank you for having me. host: here are those tweets that donald trump wrote in regards to a union leader out in indiana. jones, who is president of united steelworkers has done a terrible job representing workers. no wonder companies flee country! he followed it up with, "if they were any good, they would have kept those jobs in indiana, more time working, less time talking, reduce dues." what is your message to president-elect donald trump? john from pennsylvania is up next. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a union member. the day that donald trump announced that he was running for president, i called into
"washington journal" and said i would never vote for donald trump. i am a registered republican. i voted for hillary clinton. unfortunately, a lot of these union members who are not familiar with trump went and voted for him. they are going to learn a lesson. in 1970, when the casinos came to new jersey, they were taxed at 8%. the entire time that he was there at 8% by the state of new jersey. trump filed for bankruptcy at every one of those casinos. he had four casinos in atlantic city. plaza, taj mahal, and the marina. the casinos in pennsylvania when they came here in 2007 were
taxed at 55%, not 8%. there has not been a casino that filed for bankruptcy in pennsylvania since they came here. host: what do you think was compelling about donald trump's message to some of your coworkers and colleagues? caller: how is that? host: why do you think some of your union members voted for him? caller: he did not really have a message. he attacked everybody. we had 17 candidates on the republican side. he attacked them with lies. he cannot even say the name ted cruz. it was lying ted. it was the lying bushes. he did not have a message. he just attacked everybody. he is the big liar. he is the deceiver. host: that is john in that something appeared let's hear
from dana in los angeles. you are up early. caller: i voted for donald trump. worker.ibew guy who was arrested for child molestation. he got away with murder because the union kept covering up for him. he has been in the news lately with more child molestation. host: what about donald trump spoke to you? caller: i want him to take care of the corruption like he does in his businesses. he runs a tight ship. host: has any of his actions since the election our previous guest talked about, the nomination of andrew puzder as labor secretary change your opinion? caller: it does not. these guys will take care of
business. ,here was another guy in texas he is the same thing. he was a child molester, too. host: we will leave it there. next up is -- from arizona. --ler: did i get your genius. host: i am sorry about that. dues here formy this subscription tv. i like my money to go to free speech tv and the other cable things they are always asking for money. because i pay, and i am in favor of everyone getting paid from what i like. that is only a sidebar. to runage is that i like my jobs just like mr. donald
trump. when i run my jobs, i stick with what i say. i don't change back and forth. that is deceiving. him should be grounds for not being present. , and you maintain policy by having a stance on something. what i wanted to talk to you , and i don't know if i am still being recorded. host: you are on air. caller: when you follow the preamble to the constitution, it says to promote the general welfare. when you run all the money to the top, and they have money, they have money, and you have people out here starving asking for money. is that promoting the general welfare? i can give you an example of how it could be promoted, in other words make things for this country, not the whole world.
the constitution was written for this country i believe. let me tell you how we can get there. when these guys get up in the senate, especially in congress, they could use phrases like to promote the general welfare number one. number two would possibly be to maintain stability. to be three could be secure. number four would be like to maintain sensitivity. be -- youe would know, i forgot number five anyway. host: all right. here is another story by ted hesson in politico. unions investigate for showing for hillary clinton. union hustles failed to turn out for hillary clinton despite a
massive voter mobilization turnout effort. the assumption is that donald trump's positions on trade resonated strongly with union members in blue-collar jobs. looking at exit polls into a deeper dive on reasons. lost unionp households by 8%, that is the smallest win for democrats since walter mondale in 1984. barack obama won union households by 18% in 2012. mike is on the line. what is your message to president-elect donald trump? caller: good morning. i wanted to say that i appreciate what unions have done for this country for a little over 100 years ago. they have run their course. mediocrity ofut
performance that we cannot perform him and he should fix that to help manufacturing, and especially public service unions to back off so we can have better performances without protections of the mediocrity that unions can bring to workers who do not care because their union protects them so well that there is no chance of getting fired. host: that is mike in pennsylvania. in jersey city. caller: i am a union member for the american federation of government employees. i am a union member for 30 years. it is a federal labor union. trump ande that mr. his administration would preserve some of our rights that
,e have gained over the years not only through past democratic administrations but also republican administrations. those things are the working conditions that we contractually have enforced over the years. i am hopeful that our contracts affected.pect -- issues like reasonable accommodations, gay-rights, these are the things i hope they preserved. i also want to point out that yearsl employees over the were really underpaid. we are not overpaid as some people may think. i think the average increase in 1.2%, has been maybe meanwhile costs for our
insurance, health insurance and travel costs have all increased. we have not seen a raise in a long time. i would also point out to mr. membersat 16,000 union did vote for him. most of them were from customs ice and border, control who voted for him. our union was not totally for hillary clinton. i am hopeful that mr. trump and forministration looks out federal employees in some sort of way. from next up is ethyl pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. family a union
was in thefather myon and actually helped brother and into the u.s. steel business. unions back at the actually were responsible for a 40 hour week. we were able to afford to do .hings even henry ford was on the side of the worker at one point because he said if you made the product, you should be able to buy the product. now we are at a point where cars exceed the working efforts of the people in the auto industry with automation. and people like s,nry ford -- i mean forbe
the guy that was antiunion. the history of the unions should be observed because these people are voting against their own interests. host: next up is randy from michigan. what are your thoughts this morning? caller: good morning. i would like to start by thanking you and all the men and women who work behind the scene on this great program. my message would be, you knocked the blue wall down by just over 100,000 votes. i am one of those voters that voted for you because i looked at my kids's tax returns. they are not doing so good. mr. trump's tax returns are doing just fine, but mine aren't. i would like to remind mr. trump that those 100,000 of us that voted for you will turn around
and put against you if you don't come through. my vote was for my kids. is there anything that president-elect donald trump has done since the election that makes you worried that he will not come through for your children? caller: at first, yes. i was on a school board and had to deal with somebody like mr. trump. he is going to like to put that pressure out there and step back and stick her about it. i am not going to worry about mr. trump's game going right now. that is what he has going. i'm going to worry about the first tuesday in november four years from now. that is when mr. trump is going to have to worry about his decisions eating the right decisions for him. this is not about me. this is about mr. trump getting his second term. there is nothing more embarrassing than being a one
termer. i would like to thank you and wish you all a merry christmas. ho ho ho! let's hear from timothy and washington. good morning. caller: hello. host: you are on the air. member form a union the shipbuilders. i voted for donald trump. he has a better economic theory i think than many presidents before him. america through deregulation and lower taxes. i agree with that. i used to vote labor, labor, labor. then i became more educated on economic theory and values. between those two things, i think donald trump outdid hillary a large margin.
carrie from new york is our next caller. good morning. caller: hello. host: you are on the air. caller: yes, i am a member of the steam layers local. i want to ask mr. trump how he plans to make good on his promise to the people in appalachia and middle america to bring back: jobs when i am obs, what- back coal j i am looking here close to vermont's where they have made huge strides in wind power and solar power? how could those people actually vote for mr. trump? i am sure they are intelligent. our coal plants are not producing power anymore. how is he going to make it better for these people?
i think those people need to retrain themselves for something we are doing, electronic jobs, computer jobs. whatever. host: all right. a couple of quick headlines for you. times" rexrk tillerson, the chief executive dealmaking has plunged him into global politics, he is expected to be offered the secretary of state post this weekend by donald trump. has close tiesd to -- tillerson has close ties to vladimir putin. he would inherit many problems and face the question of whether to maintain sanctions on russia, penalties he has criticized for slowing investments by exxon
mobil in that country. questions that are sure to come up during a senate confirmation hearing. here is information out of the long-awaited congressional and senate races in louisiana. the republicans have one the party 52giving the seats. majority in the chamber, supporters in the state capital in baton rouge congratulated him on his victory. meanwhile in the congressional race, here is a story out of the hill newspaper. higginsthat clay defeated a fellow republican in his bid for a seat in louisiana's her district on saturday. -- third district on saturday.
of the the story out hill on the latest in louisiana elections. we are taking your phone calls. what is your message to president-elect donald trump? the lines are open to union members today. let's turn to washington where david is calling in. go ahead. caller: hello. host: you are on the air. caller: i belong to the international labor union out of seattle, washington. i believe a lot of union members voted for donald trump because they thought he was going to bring their jobs back. i don't think mr. trump can do that. host: why not? why do you think donald trump cannot bring those jobs back? caller: he has promised to bring those jobs back. they are gone. we have to create new jobs here. they will find out they will
have to open up a lot of small businesses. into that trade deals. both parties have been guilty of doing that. they are not going to bring whole factories back here. he is promising something that he cannot lose. a lot of union members fell for it. that is david in washington. in oregon.ellis caller: i am a union member. union members should have known something is not right with that deal that he made. the reason why is if it had been right, it would have been there he respectful that they had a union president on that deal. host: the deal you are referring
to is the deal he made with the carrier factory in indiana? caller: absolutely. they should have called the president of the unions that represent the workers in on that deal. that union president would have known then and there that all those jobs he lied about that would be saved, they would have known the next day. the president would have relayed that to the workers. i will tell you this quickly. i was at the barbershop. a man told me that donald trump god be elected because wants him to be elected. that is the only way you will see the lying double he really is. he really is. cke: here is a story about
ceo andrew puzder, donald trump's nominee for labor secretary. why he thinks the government does not understand job creation, he explains that government overregulation has had severe consequences for economic growth, dignity, and self-respect. calls the restaurants the canary in the coal mine. some reaction from lawmakers on capitol hill to the nomination of andrew puzder. lamar from alexander, "mr. president the poster is a respected tennessee business leader who understands how excessive regulation can destroy jobs. i look forward to working with them to create more jobs for more americans.
his nomination will be probably considered." senate member patty murray from washington had a contrasting statement, "i am deeply concerned by mr. posters record of standing in front of progress. in particular raising the minimum wage and ensuring equal pay for equal work. by his work in undermining overtime relations." just a few more minutes for you to get in your phone calls. we want to know what your message to donald trump is. we are opening the line to union members this morning. here are the numbers you can call. (202) 748-8003 -- (202) 748-8000 eastern or central. mountain and pacific (202)
748-8001. richard from texas. good morning. caller: i am a steel worker, retiree. i think what donald trump did, although i was a hillary he went in the right direction on the trade agreements. i think trade has been wrong for the united states. when donald trump brought this issue out, he connected to the rust belt and middle america. the democrats got there too late to do any good. i am not overly optimistic with what donald trump will do. he has said some good things about the trade issues. retiree, ik as a like what donald trump said about saving social security. he does not want to mess with it.
i think that is what resonated with middle america. i think the democrats missed the boat. host: you said you were a steel worker. still workers union is the one that represented that factory in indiana. how did you feel about the interaction and some of the comments between the union leader and president-elect donald trump? caller: donald trump got his figures wrong. he was half right. i am appreciative of the jobs he saved, but at what cost? the people of indiana are now subsidizing united technology and carrier with a $7 million tax benefit that hurts people. the jobs donald trump was able to save i am grateful for. the union leader, and i don't think he is the boss, he is a union leader. he was right. mexico andveaway to
some jobs. i think the jury is still out on that decision. we need to save more of these jobs if not all of them. you know, there were things on both sides that perhaps the president should not have said. the union president was right. there are still jobs going to mexico. host: that is richard from texas. next caller is lewis from michigan. what do you think? caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i think it is the union leadership that is the biggest problem in this country. have allowedns millions and millions of illegals to enter this country and not be deported. that is driving wages down not just for union members but for
everybody. i think donald trump is the man that might stop some of this illegal immigration. host: did you vote for donald trump? caller: yes, i did. to votet there waiting for him because i think that until we stop this illegal immigration and legal, we have too many people legally, too. a lot of this farmland is going into housing. they say we don't have enough people in this country. that is crazy. i am seeing farmland destroyed for people. it is not that we don't have enough. i am worried about my grandson and son. thank you. up, liz is calling from new jersey. you are on the air. iller: i am calling because
am not shocked. i am finding many people from the house of labor, our union members were taken and by donald trump. donald trump will not do anything to improve their living standard in the united states. he has no desire to do that. foolishly, we seem to have voted for him. host: was there anything about this message that you think resonated union members? previous callers have brought up trade and his stance on withdrawing from free-trade agreements. what do you think about that? caller: i think there are problems with some of the trade agreements. appointeescabinet wants to replace employees in his restaurants with robots. that should give you a clear signal if you have not received
one before now that this is not going to be a prolabor or prounion government. host: that is liz out of new jersey. comments from twitter. man, hardworking times." writes," then reason union membership is so low is because republicans have been trying to destroy unions for years." bonnie is calling from wyoming. what do you think? caller: i would like to congratulate mr. trump. i think this is the best thing the united states has done for years. there is a lot of people who have been in unions. they are retired. they have not got any union benefits. they have not got anything because the unions are lying to them. i think donald trump is going to
do a good job. congratulations, mr. trump. host: all right. last caller for this segment. curtis from virginia is on the line. you have the last word. caller: i would like to say quickly that i want to ask mr. trump to make sure he sticks to conservative principles. he has been a liberal for years and years. i had mixed feelings about voting for him. i am in a quandary. none of my family talks to me anymore. don'tople who like trump talk to me because i was for ted cruz. the liberals don't like me because i am for trump. i am in the middle. i think ted cruz should have got it, but since he did not, i say stick to your conservative principles. don't go off into liberal land like the epa. i am happy with his epa selection. host: up next, retired the
tenant general thomas spoehr of the heritage foundation will join us to discuss president-elect donald trump selection for his national security team. we will talk about education with randi weingarten of the american federation of teachers. newsmakers interview the new top democrat on the house budget committee, congressman john yarmouth. >> president-elect trump has announced he will nominate tom price the chairman of the house budget committee as his health and human services secretary. you have probably worked with tom price more than most democrats on the budget committee. the you think he is a good choice or bad choice for secretary? well, i think i could come up
with a better nominee given some time. tom is a very, very nice man. a gentleman. he is thoughtful. he has a perspective on the health care system that i think is just not in tune with modern health care delivery and reimbursement. he is a physician. my experience with physicians in health care is that they are great at providing care, but in terms of having an overall perspective on the entire health care system, which is 18% of the entire economy, their perspective is so myopic that they have a hard time dealing with the big picture. that is what he would have to do as secretary. i think his perspective as a position is useful and important, but you have to have a broader perspective to come up
with the kind of health care system that will satisfy the most people and provide the most access at the lowest cost. i think we could come up with somebody better. that being said, i have no questions about tom's integrity, his character, and his thoughtfulness. i think his perspective is a little limited. >> is it fair to say that you would oppose his nomination? are you not going that far? >> i don't get a vote on it. it does not matter what i say. i think if i were in the senate and had a vote on it, unless i were convinced through the confirmation hearings that he had the kind of perspective i think is necessary, i would probably oppose him. will air todays at 10:00 and 6:00 on c-span. guest, us is our next
lieutenant general thomas spoehr, director of the heritage foundation's center for national defense. and a former director for the army office of his nest transportation. -- is this transportation. -- business transportation. guest: thank you for having me. host: i want to talk you about rex tillerson, ceo of exxon mobil as secretary of state. whether you make of this potential selection? -- what do you make of this potential selection? guest: i think of it is correct it is a strong selection. i don't think there is a prominent businessman in the world who is not have extensive work with russia. if it is correct, i think it would be a selection. -- an excellent selection.
host: is donald trump hiring too many generals? what do you make of this question? is it possible to have two strong of military men in his cabinet? caller: i think that -- guest: i think there is beauty in balance in all things. i am biased in this. people who have experience leading large organizations. you have people coming people wt can hit the ground running. host: what do you expect to see out of donald trump's administration with respect to foreign policy? guest: probably close to what you have been hearing with some modification. there be influence of the cabinet officials he selects. they are preparing to get busy on their first day. the first 100 days are very
important to them. i think you will see them coming out of the gates running. host: there has been a lot of discussion during this election about the stance towards russia and the appropriate way to deal with backcountry. -- that country. what do you think the right approach is? guest: i think russia respects strength and power. push todonald trump's rebuild our military is the right way to go. we have had presidents, the last two have attempted a reset with russia with not terribly positive results. i think rebuilding our military and increasing the size and capabilities will send the message that america is serious. host: viewers can join in on the conversation. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats the line for you is (202) 748-8000.
isependents, your number (202) 748-8002. you can also send us your thoughts on social media. we are speaking with lieutenant general thomas spoehr of the heritage foundation center for national defense. you mentioned previous president's stance towards russia have not been terribly successful. do we need a friendly approach? guest: do not start off adversarial, but do not put too much thought into the idea that russia is similar to ours. there is some believe that russia is trying to return to its imperialistic beginnings under the czar or soviet union. i think you have to be a realistic person. look at their behavior and see how they behave. if it is encouraging, go a step forward. don't put a lot of trust in
something until they prove themselves trustworthy. host: what do you think about the choice of general james mattis for defense secretary? reputationas a great not only as a warrior but as a deeply abouthinks his craft. he is respected by everybody. i think he is going to be able to come in without a lot of preparation and set off in a great direction. host: when do we know about his background, his record? guest: 7000 volumes in his library. i cannot imagine where you put 7000 volumes. deeply,that reads thinks about things. he is a lifelong bachelor. coming from the pentagon, that does not bode well for the people that work there. they will be working so long hours.
you never want to work for a bachelor if you can help it, someone as serious minded as he is. i'm encouraged by the reaction from our allies. they are working -- looking forward to working with general mattis. he does not have a reputation for dissembling. he speaks what is on his mind. i think that is what is needed. host: let's hear from a caller. ed, good morning. caller: good morning. respect to user and c-span. happened is the worst qualified person in this country's history has been elected president and the most qualified person, hillary clinton got 2.8 million more votes than donald trump did. what happened with the electoral
college, designed by the founders of this country many were you have the high powerful media broadcasting information. donald trump knew that he could not bring those jobs back. he was told those jobs would not return to this country. i am a scientist with a phd. i studied in germany. i know the system. i know what is going on with the united states. unfortunately, the people have been had. the right wing is going to be really upset when they find out donald trump cannot do what he promises he is going to do. host: all right. lieutenant general. guest: thank you for your comment and question. i am encouraged by who donald trump has chosen to put in his cabinet.
he has some respected people. is not going to base a confirmation fight. his secretary for homeland security is respected and acclaimed by democrats and republicans. bipartisan support. i understand why people want to see where the new administration will go. it is fair to have some concerns. been encouraged by the people donald trump has chosen to put in his cabinet. delaware is next on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is about his buildup of the military. obviously building up ships, planes, military hardware.
how are we going to be able to pay for this without impacting our deficit? thank you. guest: david, thank you for that question. good question. these things are not free. you can see if you look at the american defense budget over time that it has been slowly strangled by other priorities. trump has said. is that he is going to look at changing the tax code, close loopholes, minimize deductions. at the heritage foundation where i work, we see opportunities and potential in changing some of the nondefense spending that could go to the defense side to cover some of these things that have been squeezed for so long. people most serious would say that we need to look at entitlements and see where our country is going and can we
restrain the growth of the atitlements that we pay on daily basis. host: one of your roles was director of the army office of business administration. every organization has business operations. my job was to make us as good as we could be on spending taxpayer money, try not to waste anything. make sure how we pay our people, how we get our supplies is all done incredibly efficiently. we made some great progress there. i wanted to ask you a piece on the washington post. the headline was "pentagon there is evidence of bureaucratic burie evidence of bureaucratic waste."
pentagon leaders have requested the study. they wanted to reinvest savings in combat are. projecte president this document it far more waste, senior officials quickly moved to area and discredit the results. what can you tell us about this kind of problem? guest: i was in the midst of that study as it was being done. aspects ofved in all it. it started off with the best intentions. find out how much the department of defense is spending on these back-office finances. the study did not progress as it should have. it was hurry. they gather faulty data. in the army, they classified combat engineers, the people that clear minefields as property managers. there were all kinds of
inaccuracies. they did not take the time to clean it up. they gave the study to the defense business board. assumptionsulty like we can save 7% in real property managers. they gave us no methodology. they just said we should be able to achieve the savings. my service strongly objected to this study. they thought it was faulty and specious and not based on facts. i think for that reason the department of defense chose to disregard the study. it was never hidden. it just was not used. i think some of the people that participated were upset that the study were not used. host: why was it rushed? guest: i don't know. we did not know at the time. they gave the support contractor, the person gathering
the data about a month to gather this. there are 3 million people in the department of defense. they took a month to figure out what every person did in these areas. that is insufficient time. it had never been done before. there was no clear methodology to do that. they proceeded anyhow. we all objected. our objections fell on deaf ears. host: do you believe there is an issue with inefficiency and waste? guest: i do. i think the study had a great objective. the grout how we can be more efficient. unfortunately this was not the right study. it took off on the wrong tangent. .t never got back on track i support figuring out these things and becoming more efficient. the department of defense budget is $600 billion a year. even if we can be 1% more effective, that is $6 billion we can save.
to tulsa,s turn oklahoma. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. you are on the air. caller: thank you. appreciate what the lieutenant general is saying. in areocrats that call still attacking donald trump and donald trump's appointees. as a republican, i am proud of what donald trump disappointed. we don't live in a vacuum. we live with choices. if you look at what obama appointed and all of the czars. he appointed and about communist -- an avowed communist. donald trump is appointing business then and generals -- men and generals.
people that are so accomplished. i am proud of what he is doing. out onciate and coming the discussion on building. that we us the feeling are going to be successful and able to afford what we do through the growth and cutting of waste. i appreciate with the general is doing here. i cannot agree with you more. i am encouraged by these people who have led large organizations. you will hear in the media space people talking about conflicts of interest and things like that. no one appears to be talking about them not being qualified for these positions. i think we will have an administration come in italy to jump off and get the nations business done. i am encouraged so far. there is still more to come. i am with you on this thing. i think they are off to a good start.
the caller mentioned the boeing controversy. mentionedelect trump the price tag was too high. think mr. trump's reaction was probably inspired by a not too in-depth knowledge of the plane. nevertheless, i think it was helpful. i will tell you, one tweet will send shockwaves. about,ple are thinking no one wants to the at the wrong end of a tweet from the president-elect today. plane oret a cheaper will we cancel, i doubt it. i notice people are watching. call from dallas, texas, on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning.
the one in charge of the pentagon and homeland security, we have got the military in charge of the government, this phase of it, we have got the oligarchs in charge of the other department. all ofry concerned about the military coming in and being a in charge of the department. i am also concerned about the right wing coming in. we have evangelists in the white house, all these other groups, you know, nationalists and white supremacists, i am concerned about what is going on with trump and what he is bringing into washington. thank you, paul. the military in charge of the department of defense and -- generalcurity
mattis for department of defense, they have spent their adult lives working for national security, studying it and thinking about it. as a former general mice elf, we swear an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states and obey the orders of the president. we more than everyone support the principles. i have no concerns about people like general mattis being in terms of oligarchs, some have become very wealthy. he want people who are not scared by a bunch of zero spirit you want people who are used to dealing with billions and maybe even trillions of dollars. you want people used to managing their own cash register. tell whether these
people are successful. you want people dealing with an economy on a large-scale and you do not find that at the local level. you find that with people who have worked for wall street and large companies. those are my thoughts. i want to read one more that ran instory politico. the story says some critics of trump's nominees warned that the administration could wind up through a military lens, disregarding the thomas c and other levels of national power. no previous policy experience. what do you think is the mark --ate balance >> balance? guest: military should not be our first move. no one understands that better than general mattis, general
kelly lost his son in combat and the dangersstands and the price of war more than general kelly. general mattis has lost hundreds of so -- of soldiers under his command. they used to visit families in the hospital. they are keenly aware of the cost and the price of warfare. i am confident they will not just advise intervention as their first course of action. they have both worked at the strategic level as combatant commanders and they understand the value of economic diplomacy and other elements of national power. host: richard from omaha, nebraska, is up next on the republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. am i there? was just wondering, what country has a greater military pass the than the united states?
and where is it? greater navies, air forces? are there armies better that are equipped? we are our army and military is falling apart. maybe you could explain how. thank you. the united states has the best military in the world today. most capable, well led, best trained. the u.s. has a huge amount of global responsibilities. we have taken it upon ourselves to see your many regions of the world. you see the persian gulf, and u.s. forces there. we can have a discussion about what is america's rapper role in the world. involved in all of these overseas alliances? japan, south korea, nato, other countries.
we need a large military. it is showing a lot of stress. readiness produce the , spare parts, 700 fighter pilots, the marine corps is having some 80 -- aviation accidents to a shortage of flying hours. the greatest military in the world is showing some >> and some strain based on years of budget cuts. i still think of it as my military. the military's overused. they are called on to do more than they can conduct right now. you are exactly right we have a great military. it is under a lot of stress right now and it needs some help. host: under the heritage foundation, you guessed it together an index of military strength. every year, they put
together an index of u.s. military strength. they lay out what are the threats the nation faces and how are the u.s. military is capable of handling those threats. we have found the ability to handle the global threats is marginal. it is only marginal at best. .e see our military we did not have the threat from russia we had five is a go. cut the size of our army and air force and marine corps. we see all kinds of dangers from north korea, russia, china, everyone is modernizing the military. withstand the risk of being caught unprepared. bob on the republican line, good morning.
thank you for your service and all of our military men and women. i want to know what you think , and i feel he is tricking us like slowly destroying us and away to make us so weak that it have to concede to other countries. do, i do notey understand how is -- how it is in our interests. to the lady yesterday, you are quick to point out republic in to prove people wrong. but anyway.
saying here is where we stand, they have not increased the intelligence budget, something that is necessary for us to do and we have not seen any authorization for the use of military force against isis, which would demonstrate stability and focus on the region. if they do not like the one the president said, there is nothing wrong with that. they can pass around what they believe in their heart is the right thing. the unity of the congress. they appear to be more willing to set up side and criticize president and to quit -- put themselves on the line and say here's where we stand. the bottom line of the american situation, it is quite clear the next president inherits a mess.
that is the most diplomatic word i can use for it. guest: i share your concerns about the iran deal. it was probably not the next deal. they still have all the scientists that came up with it. , and yet we a delay have given up all of our leverage. with that money, 90% went to the military budget. we look at iran and we are in the myths of a massive military buildup. in terms of iran as a whole, is . very destabilizing state
thousands of ballistic missiles way in excess of anything they need to defend their country, and they are the number one terrorism,nonstate including for hezbollah, the fighters in syria, hamas, so iran is a very dangerous country. them asd not treat anything other than a potential adversary. worn from tennessee on the democratic line. caller: i have a concern. an attack on our trump proffer the overseas and an attack on the united states, how can we guard against that perception? or that perception of a conflict of interest on american security where the business and the country intersect? think under
international law, though it has the name trump on it, it is not an attack on u.s. property unless it is a u.s. territory. embassy, of the u.s. it does not matter, but an attack on a piece of property owned by mr. trump in a foreign country, that would not be considered an attack on the u.s. host: independent line, massachusetts, good morning. it the pentagon had never been on standard citizens, there is no transparency, so i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and i believe you when you say the military is really's right -- fraying after these decades after dubious conflicts also, thedle east contracting process is so
corrupt and the pricing is so inflated. it would never fly in normal business fact is this. i do not understand why we give saudi arabia a pass. radicale been funding schools all over the world, educating the next generation of terrorists and we let them get away with it. it is shocking. case, lifebernardino was educated at just cannot stand the fact that we keep overlooking international terrorism. guest: you bring up a great issue with the auditing of the pentagon. 2018. audibles year do not think they will be in
compliance that they are working hard on it. they never started out that way, auditing, financial law, this is hard for them. all 3 million across the globe, will they get there? i think they will hear it it will be hard and it has required a complete mindset. when i was in the army, we are now wired to proof we are actually married so we can get the financial allocation for a person married. is having ar that copy of the marriage certificate. the army is wired to have a copy on file of my marriage certificate to prove i'm entitled. that isn't the way we started. if you have to find the marriage or birth certificates for millions of people, that is a
hard thing to do. they are on their way to get there. i'm encouraged. i think donald trump will take in ouruption contracting. if there's one thing he knows about, it is executing contracts and things like that. the people he is appointing will corruptionerance for . i cannot speak to your question about saudi arabia. we have to conduct the foreign policy on people who share our interests and are willing to support us in the other things we're trying to do. somebody has made the assumption that saudi arabia by and large are on the main, a partner we need to have. bob from texas is calling on the line.
i appreciate you taking my call. bear with me because i'm not real good in express and i want to say but let me try. 1952 andin korea, 1956. , the united we had firepower on what submarine for instance that he how canf world war ii, we be getting weaker? i know we are stronger now than we were then. my second point is when i see people get up there and talk,
they dofferent things, not tell the full truth, then how can i believe everything they say? for instance, when the gentleman said something about the money million, he did not point out that that their money that they were getting back. he mentioned is something about, we will have to s.ke a look at entitlement when they use the word, they always mean social security and medicare and medicaid and he and i know there are a lot of other entitlements. i wish they would point that out . when they use the word
entitlement. host: bob from texas. guest: thank you for your service in korea and i know that was 90 eight. in terms of how the military is getting we are, the truth is the army we have today is smaller than our army has ever been in sniping 39. the navy is smaller than it has been since world war i. they only have 272 ships, and by their own account, they need 308 ships. our army because of budget cuts and other factors is shrinking, as is the navy and marine corps as well here everyone of the military services is on a downward path. the average age of the air force lane is 27 years. i would not want to pick up my family and put it in a car and in a past the country 27-year-old car, much less fly over enemy territory in wayne that is 27 years old. that is what we are asking our sons and daughters to do.
budget cuts and overuse, the military is in real danger. ourhat was not bad enough, adversaries or our potential adversaries like china and russia, have been engaging in double-digit modernization of their militaries. we now believe russia has a tank better than the u.s. military tank. the russians are putting in place stealth fighter aircraft probably be equivalent of our best aircraft. we have real concerns we are being left the hind in modernization efforts of our militaries. you are right, that was iran's money that we released. the results of that has been they are increasing their military and though we have signed a nuclear deal with them, their behavior has not apparently changed one bit. they took the u.s. navy sailors prisoners, humiliated them in a way that fellow friendly navies did not treat other navies the way our sailors were treated.
entitlements, i am not an expert and i agree with you that every piece of the settlement as well as everything else should be on the table as we look for efficiencies in the government. john is calling in on the republican line. good morning to you. interruptease don't me. let me give you a brief history on america. 1940's, a 1930's and roman catholic church, 20,000, they used to come here in the dates to build our rockets. all of this technology that is to help the american people will, we have been paying research and development or 40 and 50 years. supremacists all over the world.
, we arerporate fascism basically going to be reduced to slaves. guest: backup is putting these people and his cabinet and i cannot agree -- i cannot disagree with you. we want people with the other people in the country. that is not found in the people who are managing small budgets. trump at hismr. word that he will look at the small person trying to increase jobs in the country and bring jobs back to the united states.
they otherwise tried to accept them at their word. how important do you think it is for donald trump to attend daily intelligence briefings. when he becomes president, i think that is what he ought to do. off in istanbul and cairo. you cannot really miss a day in the intelligence world. , i woulds so quickly recommend president trump get a daily briefing. host: next up is fred, go ahead. caller: good morning. general, thank you for your service. i want to enlighten people of the country, do not underestimate the generals. very welleducated,
military nowadays. people whogrees, and have phd's. do not unrest and the qualifications of these generals. i would bet the generals are more qualified than most civilians are. underestimate the retirees. guest: thank you for your service. i am biased hit and i agree with you. these people set death spent upre don't live all the way to pentagon and the capital. host: in the new york times, the u.s. to add 200 troops to the isis fight in syria. the number is nearly doubling -- ence there, thousands
secretary carter said this includes commandos and bomb squad specialists. three forces already working in , combat thea islamic state. mr. trump has expressed a desire to work with russia and the syrian government to the feed the islamic state. we have no idea who these people are. new will we see in the administration and what should be done? mr. trump has been clear his first priority is to stamp out isis. pentagon has announced, the chips are going to syria. specificvery specialties.
people who are target tears who work to bring bombs on target. i think that is a welcome addition. i cannot speak to relations with russia. best operating in the same country and coordinating. if people can achieve a level of coordination with russia, i think that would be useful. help us with the humanitarian crisis in syria. north carolina on the independent line, go ahead, joe. a pleasure to speak with you. era.w up in the vietnam i willed a few years ago
have you speak to it. the floor congress and they do not hold back. russia, china, iran, north korea, isis. and they areward modernizing assessed as they can. services, other than the coast guard, homeland the sequestration, every time we debt -- we get we have to pay for. other folks do not have to pay for it. they are moving forward.
i was in logistics. here's what is happened. then he want to pull it up, it is thicker than any bible we have seen. there are a lot of lost hollow and a lot of safeguards. the pendulum is slain so far that it now calls probably -- costs probably $5,000 -- more than that in man-hours. , so manyaperwork safeguards in place now. it is hard to get any -- host: ok. we get your point. guest: thank you for your service in the shipyard and logistics. we also have that now. the dod in the department of state -- department of defense,
20 -- 20% more facilities than today. it is costing the department of defense over $500 million a year to keep the extra capacity online for stuff we do not need. contracting, you are right that it us become way too cumbersome. it needs to be streamlined. i would like general mattis would take that on. frank is up next, good morning. yes.r: i spent some time in the military. i came in when the vietnam era commissioned what concerns me is less than 1% of the population are eligible to
serve through military service, actually did military service. suchis one reason we have division in the country. the people have never done militaries service and it never been to a foreign country. they really do not see how great it is tearing the only lead , and theyn a book think they know the country. think the volunteer army has been a disaster, a bad choice. i want to know what you think about bringing the draft back. guest: i came in a 1980. with much morey capable than the drafty army. were alcoholic. i think the army we had our
light years beyond that. i do not disagree with you. there should be more of a national discussion about service and whether it is in the military or some other form of national service, we should try to get our citizens exposed to more of what is going on in the country and overseas. host: thank you so much for joining us this morning. toing up next, we will talk weingarten, pillow talk about president donald trump passes choice to lead the education department. we will discuss that and the future of the u.s. and china. we will be right back.
♪ >> today on c-span3, at 1:00 p.m. eastern, a simple debt symposium on code rakers. aided american family who the french resistance in the nazi occupied paris. collects a very serious one, a 50 euro son, jackson. a place where the resistance could meet, and where shelligence was dropped, was risking not only her life but her husband's and her son's life. >> tried, convicted, and it did for murder in messages despite
the lack of supporting its. brett snyder discusses a car -- controversy in the united states with justice ruth bader ginsburg. >> transferred to the death house. after reading the report comes the governor declared this -- fair trial. the boston press declared it closed. efforts during world war i into -- and world war ii. became an international hero, the embodiment of a new force in global politics. american benevolence in the form of humanitarian aid. >> go to c-span.org.
>> follow the transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress. we will take you to key events without interruption. watch live on c-span and on-demand at c-span.org or listen on our free c-span radio at. >> washington journal continues. our guest is randi weingarten. she joins us from new york. thank you for being here. guest: thank you for having me and my apologies in advance or my cold. host: that is quite alright. i want to start off the conversation by asking you about donald trump's nominee for education. you put out his timid calling his nominee someone who is the most ideological, anti-public education nominee put forth
since president carter created the cabinet levels of the department of education. explain to us why you are so concerned. >> sure. we have a lot of members in michigan and we spent a bunch of time, i, recently, in the last year, really trying to help detroit turnaround public schools. what we have seen, betsy devos may be a nice woman, i don't know, but we have seen in the last 20 years of that the that she has done, she has done everything in her power to destroy public education. i will give you three examples. in the early 2000's, she and her wealthy,who are very put ballot initiatives on the ballot in michigan to have vouchers instead of public schools, in lieu of public
schools. whatever. it went down a 2-1 vote, rather than listen to the will of the to actuallydecided try and use the legislature to do that as well. so, when the governor actually tried to work with the republican senate to delay a tax cut for the wealthy so they could fund public schools, betsy devos used her considerable clout to for that. in the last year, when everyone, republican, democrats in detroit, tried to save the detroit public school, not the system, change the system, but the accountability for both charters and the public schools, betsy devos once again, after the senate bipartisan bill was passed, used her considerable clout, which she is proud of, to
stop it. we have 90% of our kids in america in public schools here and not saying every public school is great. we need to change all public rules to make sure they work for all kids. but our responsibility, she is a private citizen it is fine for her to do whatever she wants to do. but if she is the secretary of education, the responsibility is to all children who go to public schools and were 31 days have not yet increased funding back to where they were in 2008. we are asking public schools to do more and more and deal with creativityking and and ensuring that kids have the skills and the knowledge that they need for their lives, and yet, what she wants to do and what she has done the last 20 years is everything she can to
destabilize and defund them. there is a story in politico, with some of her remarks, an event on thursday. she said there is a lot of false news out there and all i ask is for the community to share my heart. an event in michigan. the story goes on to say that donald trump called for several arts of the education system to be reformed and that includes bringing education local and providing choice. donald trump calls for every -- child to attend a religious school that is right for them. what do you think about those ideas? let me start by saying i am a schoolteacher and a lawyer. i hate what has happened in terms of fake news.
but most of the fake news that happened in this last election was done on behalf of donald trump. operate in fake news. we operate in evidence. frankly, what we have looked at, what i talk about, what has happened in michigan, michigan scores inf the worst the last 20 years. it's charters, 80% of whom are for profit, do worse than michigan's's public schools. these are evidence. cannot, youkids know, they live once. they do not have a chance or a choice to actually go to somebody of his ideological whim. in terms of what mr. trump said, we want kids to have great choices. of the taxpayer money, the role of public schools, the role of a
government that is supposed to to makeeeing things, is sure the public schools are a great choice. frankly, our founders, of 240 years ago, said we have to have a real separation of church and state. w.am a pretty religious je i love my religion i love being june which. lovent to make sure -- being jewish. who areo make sure kids catholic, muslim, if their parents decide they want to have that religious education, that is their right. responsibility is to make sure public schools are the best they can be. we have to make sure they work.
what the responsibility is paired parents want to have other choices, they have a right to those choices that is our spot voting. the last thing mr. trump has said is last year, republicans and democrats alike have worked together. going thing congress actually did together with the president, we fundamentally reform federal education law to stop this overreach, to prohibit the secretary of education from standardsat kind of they should have, including common core. and we pushed to have much more local control. passed by had been the senate, the house of representatives, by the president. law we are operating on. much more local control and the state gets decide once again what their standards are and not
the federal government. the states with a focus on listening to parents and teachers, deciding what the curriculum should be, where on, ashould be focused in the new federal law, and the kids with the most need. that is what the new federal law did. have that kind of control, and it would be good if the nominee, assuming that, and i'm not all that sure, i've no idea what the senate will do in terms of betsy devos because she is antithetical to everything butdepartment stands for, that is what the secretary of education should be doing, ensuring that the new law and the bipartisan consensus is actually done in schools across the country. host: we're talking with randi weingarten, president of
american federation of teachers. here are the lines to dial -- host: let's turn to damascus, maryland, joann on independent line. good morning. caller: i would like to say something about vouchers. i which -- i wish people out there would listen to me on this. here's the problem with vouchers. donald trump has talked about giving everybody a $4300 voucher so they can place their kids in any school they want, basically. here is the problem. those who only help people with money. it will not help poor kids.
it will not help working folks. has anybody checked out the cost of private school lately? probably ating their minimum about $18,000 a year end up. the 43 hundred dollars voucher, and you have got to cough up the rest of the money, how many people out there have the money to send their kids to private school? takewill happen is you money out of the public school system and all of the poor kids, the people in the lower economic working-class, their kids will be going to the public schools that will have a lack of funding and substandard. classesy in the upper are going to be able to have a little boost to send their kids to private school. i'm very much against vouchers but i think -- i think folks often times do not understand the full picture. ?ost: randi weingarten
guest: joanne is right. let's look at the evidence as opposed to, ideology. there have been several voucher plans around the country, in milwaukee, cleveland, louisiana, and what they have shown is the kids who have gone to those schools have not done as well as the kids who actually remain in the public system. it has happened is trained all of this money out of the public system and it has actually hurt the schools in the public system and it hurt the kid to go to the schools. in cleveland, they have to do love the after levy a few -- after levy raising taxes because voucher a voucher -- program and people want to spend money for the public schools. what has happened is the vouchers have drained it.
therefore, people are actually spending more tax money funding public schools. we have also seen in a lot of places that schools with vouchers can kick kids out whenever they want. charters kick kids out whenever they want. they can take whoever they want. they can make all sorts of different rules. that is what private education can do and that is what religious education can do. , youu have public money have a responsibility to the the child's family, not just to the particular private ideology, or religious ideology you have. that has been a big problem in a lot of different places. from louisiana, calling on line for educators, what are your thoughts? caller: thank you for taking my call. like for youould
to comment on is, the overwhelming belief that i've come toe come expect over the past 15 years that charter education, is for what is -- what ails us for education in the country. knowing people who have worked in charter schools and knowing something about the whole ideal and how it works in theory, is the schools are no better than public schools for the most part. the way they have manifested themselves in the south is resegregation. reason, i and vehemently opposed to them. not only that but charter education and charter schools, the educational mission is inferior to what public schools generally aspire to. not only that, but they pay employees much less does wondering if you could comment. thanks. , go: randi weingarten
ahead. caller: you are totally right -- guest: you are totally right. the reason, there are some who find what mr. trump says a loring, it is because it is our kids. we desperately want to have some magic bullet, some shiny new apple to say, if you just do this, everyone will get a great education. so charters became the shiny app, or the new toy, and sometimes people say that about vouchers. what you just said and you are so right, is that education is really hard. we have to do everything we can to help develop the skills and knowledge of kids, help them build relationships and critically think. help them learn resilience. should take and
it is our responsibility for every child. if we could have a pluralistic and diverse environment, that will help kids. that point of brown versus the board of education. that was an opportunity for all diverse settings. what charter has done is some do a good job but most do exactly what the rest of schools in the community do. depends on so cold -- social economic positions. two thirds of a child's's achievement gap is explained by social economic conditions. what has happened is some states have charter laws where they have to take all kids, where the money is not -- money for public schools. a lot of states, a shortcut. we still do that. they did a shortcut which did not do that and let there be for
profit charters, which make money off of kids, like 80% of charters, you see that they do a rotten job. you will always find one or tea does that do well. i run a charter you're the one i run in new york city, it pays its teachers more than the public schools pay teachers. it is a unionized charter. 100% graduation rates and i'm very proud of it. but charters were supposed to be incubators of ideas that we would bring them to the bigger public school system. now what has happened in a lot of places, they have gotten hijacked to be paid for by they have, ashat the speaker said, more segregated, take less kids of special needs, and they can get rid of kids anytime they want.
still most of them do exactly what the rest of the public's have done in the district. above -- other public schools have gotten destabilized or defunded. , i wantndi weingarten to ask you about a not that in the wall street journal. we will read a little bit of it for you. ms. betsy devos is the chair of an organization dedicated to helping parents choose the best school for their kids. --weingarten leaves the still provide jobs for her dues paying members. she has fought to ensure that government officials rather than parents decide where a child in school union influence over education policy in the u.s. unrivaled. the top concern is better pay and working conditions for her members and students do not pay
their dues. we would like to hear your -- your response to those thoughts? it is ridiculous care what a teacher wants more than anything else is for a student to succeed. last week i was walking in the hills in the park, and wearing a big hat and am trying not to be noticed with my dog and my partner. says my nameme and and she tells me who she is, it was one of my students from 20 years ago with her son, her partner, we're taught me about her kids and where they go to school. after we both talked for a while and pictures and start walking said,he other way, she you know, i love history because of what you and dr. casey did. that is what a teacher lives for. we going to edge nation not to
make a lot of money. nobody does. but to exit change lives and make a difference in the lives of kids. that is what over 3 million public school teachers in the country do. what a union does is actually help them have terms and conditions and respect they need to do a good job. that is what my union does. this week, we started a learning platform. one million people used it. it is for free and paid for by union dues. we do it to ensure that teachers have some of the materials they need. so i am proud of the advocacy we do to fix and not close public schools, to make sure that kids have the knowledge they need and the pluralism they need in the public's rules. in whatever come names they want to call me but i am proud of who we do to make a
difference in the lives of kids. betty from albuquerque, new mexico, good morning. i did notft, was on, get a chance to talk and i'm excited. everyone talks about how education is so that in the united states and 30 years ago it was not. teachers have to be accountable and schools and parents have to be accountable. no one ever talks up the kids having be accountable. a child wants a >> and they still get passed to the next grade. maybe the kids were accountable and we kept them back -- i do not want to hear the argument we cannot have 20 euros a night grade. i do not believe that because 30 years ago, when you fought the >>, you state that and did it again. guest: let me go back to the evidence as opposed to instant. thank you for your question.
responsible. to be i like the word responsibility rather than accountability. educatorslity is when , including our kids, take real responsibility for their actions. studieshad a lot of about retention, third grade retention issues and you know, leaving kids that. by and large, unless you actually help a child in a fundamentally different way the second time, leaving kids back doesn't really help. what does help is if you kid -- give kids help, whether it is remediation, a different way of looking at information, kids learn in different ways. the other thing that helps is when we have things we now do in school called restorative
justice. kids are taking more and more response only for themselves and ofir actions and the two age teachers and mentors and coaches. but all of this actually takes some money to do. program, ifa good you have additional resources where you can do tutoring, or you can meet kids where they are, you can deal with the learning needs. actuallyd that if you have prekindergarten, or early childhood education, and it is done in a quality way, kids start off in terms of kindergarten and first grade, with more basics and more of the socialization than they otherwise would have had. things tend to help more. the bigger point of, if somebody is not meeting the standards, we have to actually, you cannot cover that overcome you have to expose that, i think that is
important. teachers, you are right, have when pushed kids forward they do not have the skills they need. actually find to andy to get them the skills those supports when we first see the problem. that is why we need to have that support in terms of early childhood and elementary schools in one thing we like doing is we have sustainable community schools where kids can have help after school in a way that is aligned with teachers. we see that really works. a couple schools in albuquerque doing that now and we see real progress. from a teacherr from st. louis, missouri. dennis, good morning to you. caller: thank you. i'm a retired public school teacher who currently works for
a public school -- public school service station. i have been a reluctant supporter of what i like to call and you called public charter schools in the city of st. louis, where a the at least some incremental progress. he referred to yourself running a charter school. what is your take on, and i underscore public, public charters as opposed to charters run by private companies. themson i have supported is i do not see much prospect for integrating schools in the city of st. louis or the inner suburbs. it is a sad comment to make. i do not know where to go with this. i think in the end, it is a much than charters and vouchers. we have to do with reality. i will leave it at that. guest: when charters are a part of bigger system, when parents
have a choice about, for example, magnate schools or career tech schools or programs, charters, neighborhood public schools and all of them are funded decently enough so they're not pit against each other, then you can have a robust system where parents have eal choices. most parents choose a neighborhood public school if it's safe and welcoming and if it works for their kids because of the convenience. but what's happened is in st. louis, for example, you saw both real segregation and real defunding and the st. louis -- our st. louis local has worked very hard with kelvin adams, the suspect, to try -- superintendent, to try to increase kindergarten programs, to try to increase the standards in tools and there's some really
terrific public schools in st. louis. but the funding is not there to do a lot of what we need to do to meet the needs of kids and what you see in some of the know, s is that, you parents have wanted to have their kids there and you see some focus on some issues like, you know, very strict discipline, things like that. and so you see an uptick in a couple of the charters and you see an uptick in a couple of the public and then you see basically several of them struggling. so your point is right. but the point -- the bigger point is that if we actually had the career tech ed programs, if we had the magnate programs in the city, if we have the funding that we have in the schools, then you see, i think, more integration and you're also
right that more integration would be very, very helpful. host: your group has been very stroke until its criticism in some of donald trump's proposals for education and of course, of his nominee for lead education department. but this story in the news said many of your members voted for donald trump. about one in five federations cast the ballot for trump and that's compared to one in three who were estimated to have voted for donald trump who were members of the national education association. can you talk a little bit about that disconnect and why are so much the members voting for trump when you guys very adamantly against his policies? guest: sure. first off, we have a lot of republican members and when we saw that, over 80% of our members voted for hillary clinton, i was not surprised about 20% voted for donald
trump. you know, our m.v.p. is very varied and -- membership is very varied and free thinking individuals. so my sense was that one -- 80% of our members voted for hillary clinton was actually pretty good news to me, not surprising news to me. since the election, i've gotten letters from members who have voted for trump and, you know, why and to listen to people voted for trump thinking he would improve to the -- the economy, thinking he speaks to the little guy. he speaks to a very to your face way and, you know, some people really like that. and one of the letters sent to me or one of the letters that i just got said dear ms. weingarten, i made a terrible
mistake. i voted for donald trump and then it goes on to say i now this tick for secretary that she will hurt the education of our kids and hurt what we've all tried to do. please fight that. so i think what you're seeing is that he went out. to the ork -- he said little guy i'm going to get rid of the elite. i'm going to get rid of the establishment. i'm going to help you get a job. now, it is -- in his cab birnings he's put all sorts of people in there that are elites, that are establishments that actually believe in doing things that ultimately will hurt the little guy. the big difference between what we believe in terms of education and what they believe in terms of education and economics is we believe there has to be a latter of opportunity.
the streps to be in place. you have to have a public education system so you can climb up that ladder of opportunity. you can't live on $10 an hour in the united states of america. it's a proper wage. you can't live on that. the guy who -- he supported his labor secretary actually makes it one day more than most of his employers of minimum wage make in a year. so, you know, part of it is you actually talk to people. people should vote. they have a right to vote. it's really, really important. but you also have to have a shared sense and when eight out of 10 of your folks share those values, that's a pretty good --
that's a pretty good end result. i wish that the election was different. she has won -- hillary clinton has won the popular vote, you know, by 2.8 million. i think the situation or what we've heard in the last two days on top of what mr. kobe did is very troubling when a foreign power like russia tries to intervene our election and the congress know about it in except the republicans put party over country, i think that's a problem. but having said that, we're going to fight for the values that we believe in and virtually all of our members believe in those values about a good economy that works for all, great public education, good health care, pluralist of a democracy and fighting hate and bigotry. host: let's hear from robin on the republican line. robin, go ahead.
caller: my daughter wanted to go to a private school but what i wanted to ask you is they said to my granddaughter that it was very -- it was going to be much harder here than it was in public schools for you with your class work and your school work. and what i wanted to ask you is she outshowed them because she went back to the principal's office and showed them she aced every test. she was just -- she's just a brainiac, really. but is there a difference in teaching in these schools or is the work harder than it would be in the public schools? that's why i'm really curious to know that. guest: well, you know, look, we have 16,000 school districts and over 100,000 schools. i would suspect that if you go to different schools, you're going to find even in public space or private space, you're
going to find things that are really different. the big difference is that private schools get to decide who they want to have in school and they get to decide if they want to kick people out. public schools can't, shouldn't. we have the responsibility for all kids. but to your point, if we have, you know, when i went to school, i was in a.p. courses. was in courses that i took that tried to at least my participates thought, would actually push me harder than i would push myself. and we need to have course work in schools that meets the needs of kids that were powerful to each kid. so for your granddaughter, we need have that kind of course work. i think the issue and i have been to scranton a lot, the issue is actually the funding. and ensuring that there's funding to have the kind of escalatored -- accelerated
courses that meet the needs of your granddaughter in a public setting. and pushing hard and not teaching just english and math, but teaching much more robust social studies and science courses that actually spark people's interests, music, art, and then actually are of the rigor that kids like your granddaughter really needs and will thrive on. host: paul is from the -- on the democratic line. good morning, paul. caller: i've been sitting here and i listened to you last time you were on tv and you're talking about fake news. a lot of the stuff you're putting out is fake news. and all you got to do to prove it is to go to youtube and a bunch of other internet sites and see what's actually being taught in these schools and most of the stuff is as far, far
extreme left wing stuff. you're not worrying about teaching math, science, english, history and all of that. you're more concerned with teaching political correctness -- host: paul from danville, virginia. randi weingarten. guest: so paul, let me do this with you. if you see any of that stuff and you think there's a problem, e-mail me directly about it. go to our website, e-mail me directly about it because, you know, we have to actually have a shared sense of what our values are and what our supports are. you know, so i really believe in teaching math and english and social studies and science and i believe in meeting the needs of kids. so if you see some of this stuff, send it off to me and let's have a real conversation about it because i think one of the biggest problems in this
last election was this notion of fake news, look what just happened in pizzeria in northwest washington. our offices in washington, a lot of our families have kids. they go to this pedia all the time. a -- pizzeria all the time. a guy comes in with a rifle and shoots into the pizzeria saying he is investigating himself whether or not hillary clinton's champagne manager had a traffic degree in that pizzeria. he could have killed kids that were there. they were terrified that day. that was off news that started that. that's wrong. we have to drill down and get to end that where all of us take the responsibility. so i'm saying to you if you see some of that, talk to me about it and let's see if we can jointly try to stop some of that from happening.
host: for teachers and educators is sergio. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning. guest: thank you for calling. caller: ok. i'd like to just take a moment to look at what's been happening since ronald reagan. union busting has really been a core relief of the republican party. and what we've seen is we've seen unions taken down, unions taken down. the u.a.w. is just a little fraction of what it used to be. and what we've seen is we've seen a dissent. -- descent. people are concerned about the economic well-being and there's been this nonstop march to destroy unions. unfortunately, it's sad to say, but the teachers unions are the last to stand.
guest: sergio is right. when we saw after, you know, we saw probably the biggest increase in the middle class, u also saw a cor tiff -- cor lat tiff with the unionization when one out of three people were unions. you saw a cor lat tiff with increased living standards for all americans throughout the country. but it has created terrible pressures on the workforce, on wages and what has happened is
that it resulted in a decreased in unionization, a decrease in wages, a increase in productivity. but american workers didn't profit from that. american corporations and a bunch of billionaires have, but workers haven't. so with the decrows of union accusation, you see more -- unionization, you see more corporate power and that's what has happened since the last recession. worker wages have been stagnant. the president gets a lot of credit for getting us through that last recession and the last couple of months, you're seeing an uptick in worker wages. but donald trump actually ran this race as if we were in a deep recession as opposed to getting out of it. but that recession was caused by
the titans of wall street and they're back in the cabinet again. and i fully suspect that we're going to fight every which way for workers rights and workers voice so make sure that families have a quality of life that they deserve in america and i suspect we're going to have a lot of fights with people like pud zero and devos and sessions and actually want to take away this opportunity. host: we have time for one more call with david on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i had a question and a comment. as far as the vouchers go, i know there was legislation proposed to provide vouchers for low income families to attend private schools, but those private schools would not be accountable to taxpayers on how the money was spent or what curriculum was taught and things
like that. and i was wanting if you knew of any other states in the country that may have proposed similar legislation and the comment is that that concerns me because when you look and listen to republicans in congress who adamantly deny that climate change which has proved to be real science and, you know, there was a story a while back about -- host: all right, david, unfortunately, we have to leave it there because we are almost out of time. randi weingarten, your final comments. guest: so look, that's part of the reason that -- that's part of the reason that we are of -- opposed to them because religious schools can do what they want. that's part of the separation of church and state. we don't, in america, tell religion what to do. but with taxpayer dollars that are going for kids' education,
we have a responsibility for kids to get the education that they deserve. in public schools and in public schools, that's what we try to do. that's part of the reason we are opposed to what betsy devos did in michigan. 80% of the charters of michigan are for profit. 40%% are below the -- what other public schools do in michigan. they're just -- they just don't work for kids and our responsibility is to make sure that kids thrive and that we give kids the support and the knowledge that they need, the opportunity they need to thrive s adults in america. you have to do it in a public system where you have that accountability over that money. so there's no corruption. there's no cronyism. and the curriculum you say 1/4
going teach you will do and you help meet the needs to have kids who may be poor, who may need food, who may need glasses. that's what we need to do in america for all kids. thank you. host: that is randi weingarten. she is president of the american federation of teachers. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: coming up next, we're going to talk about the future of u.s.-china relations. we'll have that discussion with david lampton of johns hopkins you're. we'll be back. >> off when you look at a project, you look afterwards to see whether you've achieved your objectives and at what costs. so i wanted to see through this last half century of military interventions partisan politics aside, morality aside, what happens after the party's over? what are the afterfoskets the war and what are the human and
financial costs on both sides? >> tonight on, and a, brian gruber discusses his book, "war: the after-party." it connles his travel experiences through countries with u.s.-involved conflicts. >> we all come with some form of bias but i went to all these places with an open mind trying not so much to understand what a partisan point of view might be or be validated, but to look at what's the -- was the mission accomplished and what were the cons both ends of the gun bell? >> tonight on q&a. host: monday night on the "communicators," verizons veck tiff talks about the changes over reents years.
he discusses the need for a massive fiber buildout which could be part-of-the infrastructure program being considered for president-elect donald trump in congress. he's interviewed by john mckinnon, technology reporter for the "wall street journal." >> we're building the fiber deeper and deeper into the networks so that the wireless signals are traveling a. a shorter distance. when we talk about a wireless networks, 90% of that is actually fiber and i mentioned the internet of things and smart cities, look at what cities are trying to do. you need a mastiff fine early infrastructure to do that. >> watch do not the communicators" on c-span2. host: our next guest is david lampton. he is the china study program director. dave davis, thank you so much for being here is the morning. guest: good to be with you.
host: i would like to ask you about the encouragement state of u.s.-china relations. how would you rate our relationship as it stands now? guest: i think the obama administration and looking forward, it's been in the most uncertain state it's been in a long time perhaps in 191989 in event man -- tiananmen and it's got some positive aspects but i would say the direction is not terribly positive. host: why is it so uncertain? guest: a number of things. we have a new administration that's taken shape that's part of it but i would have said that before the recent election. we've had a change about three years ago. the chinese leader represents the departure on the preceding three leaders, i think, towards a strong man rule, a more assertive foreign policy and
therefore, he's been pushing for china as he would say, play a bigger role in the world system and of course, that runs up against the insecurities of his neighbors and then frankly the insecurities of big powers like japan and the united states. host: you mentioned there are areas in which there are competition, the areas in which there are progress in our relationship. where do you see -- what issues fall into which category? guest: well often they're mixed. for instance, trade. china is our number two trade partner afrikaan. and ina is the most -- particularly in many of the areas that trump won the election, curiously enough. so you called say that's good and china's tightening up for some of our competitive sfliss the services, for example, are etting increasingly difficult.
i don't want to say skeptical, but perhaps a little depressed about the circumstance in china. having said that, once again, most of our major multinationals are making money in china. so there's a high degree of business ambivalence and surprisingly in the military. we're worried about south china sea and china's building artificial islands and seeming to have a bit more of a strong armed presence in east asia and southeast asia. u.s. military to military exchanges are actually quite active. and we just had three chinese p.l.a. navy vessels visit san diego and i was just over the weekend with a group of chinese journals that had an change with the senior level of the u.s. army. i would say every domain of our
interaction has its pluss and minuses. probably the biggest plus is climate change. china has actually specified that in 2030, it will be on a path to declining carbon emissions and china's a party to the paris agreement that the u.s. has under the obama administration agreed to uphold. and so i would say that's positive news there. so it's a mixed record but the overall tone of the relationship i think is not good. host: our viewers can join in our conversation with david lampton of johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. here are the lines to dial. republican number is 202-748-8001. democrats line is 202-748-8000. inns -- independence, 202-748-8002. and we're also reading your
tweets. donald trump was in iowa thursday night and he talked about his view of china in some of the risks and potential opportunities that might bring to the u.s. here's a little bit of what he had to say. president-elect donald trump: one of the most important relationships we must improve and we have to improve, is our relationship with china. the nation of china's responsible for almost half of america's trade deficit. china is not a market economy. they got a lot of help. and that's why we designate them as being a non-market economy. big thing. they haven't played by the rules. and i know it's time that they're going to start. they're going to start. they've got to start. we're all in this thing together, folks. we got to play by the rules,
folks. you have the massive staff of intellectual property putting unfair taxes in our companies, not helping with the menace of north korea like they should and the devaluation of their currency and product dumping. other than that, they've been wonderful, right? host: not playing by the rules. is that accurate? guest: what he enumerated in his statement, at last lot of truth to those things. and i think most objective observers would recognize all those things. and i thought several things he said were very important. first of all, he said he wanted to have a better relationship. but he also said that china -- that we're all in it together, i think was his phraseology. and that points to the interdependence, the difficulty of managing u.s.-china relations is that we're all in it
together. what china does affect us and we have a lot of benefits on this relationship. on the other hand, he mentioned intellectual property rights and it's a massive staff that's been occurred over time and it's been an issue in decades in our relationship with china. so he's focused on something very important there. he's correct in saying about half our deficit, global trade deficit is with china and that's certainly something that ought to be improved. many american consumers have benefitted greatly from the importses of inexpensive chinese consumer goods and that americans rrnts forced to buy chinese things. they have chosen in the marketplace to do that. so they're obviously getting a lot of benefit there. so i think the broad contours of
what he said are roughly correct. the issue is how to go about addressing these issues. and i would just say one thing. he's appointed quite a few people that are at least nominated, quite a few people to hold positions here and some of them actually have quite a bit of experience dealing with china. the new transportation secretary elaine chow, she's the designate secretary has a lot of experience dealing with china. is quite prominent in the chinese-american community and is a longtime republican, married to senator mitch mcconnell and so forth. so i think a very good nominee there. trump just nominated terry branstad, the governor of iowa who has a very long and extensive relationship with china's president. he's also designated wilbur ross who has a lot of business experience for commerce secretary. so the long and the short of it
is i think he has identified some problems. he has identified some -- from my way of thinking, capable experienced people to deal with that account. but the real issue is how in the end is his administration as a totally going -- tolte going to deal with -- tolte and how does his mode of on randy start to work when dealing with the chinese? host: let's turn now to the phone lines. glen is calling on the democratic line. glen, good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. is just that for years, we've been hearing about these issues, these trade issues with the rebel of china -- republic of china and donald trump has all of these businesses all over the world based in these what the average american person considers an
unsavory country, russia, china, indonesia, eastern europe countries. well now that he's president, he's saying bring them all back. don't do business withsaying br. don't do business with those countries. what he is saying meant what he was doing are different things. can bribe the occasional company in america to stay here. but it seems like he is not following any of his own advice. he's not following his own leadership. me, i do mylike research so i don't buy from china. i don't buy from large corporations so i don't buy from china. i have always genuinely believed that the american product is superior. lampton.id
that: you are correct right now i think mr. trump has candidates who have a long history of dealing with the campaignh of discussion would have led one to expect a more sharp departure. on the other hand he's bringing one he basically has to a point about 4000 people to positions of government. people will be very responsible for the actual shape and implementation of policy. there you see more of a departure from the past leadership at those levels. that have muche closer ties to taiwan for the most part.
they are people that are much more skeptical of china in the security domain. motivated to not be trapped by the sort of massive consumer exports of china, more willing to think about tariffs. up, at the shaping moment you might conclude there of at a big -- as big departure. a lot of the work of government is done by people who are yet appointed. emerging staffing of the administration i think may be moving in a direction that's more consistent with what i thought you were proposing. host: the next caller is sean on the democratic line. i would like to say the basics.
nafta. that's the rise of china. .e do not have fair trade at the end of the day there are more chinese goods, products, parts in your car, radio, stereo. it's an unfair balance. what i'm disturbed by is how americans when trump can decide to save -- even if he was to save three jobs that's better than none. you would have had zero from the him forg and i commend appointing the people in his administration. in order toower bargain and make deals on behalf of the american people. not doing business as usual. host: that is sean from florida. david lampton. guest: the caller referred to
nafta. actually the big break in china's global role was the wto membership china achieved in 2001. led to a massive jump in chinese exports and so forth. nafta is not irrelevant to china's rise but actually wto membership was i think a much larger factor. that detail aside i think one of the major things we have to , no one is forcing americans to buy chinese products. also costs are rising in china. a lot of production is moving to pakistan, bangladesh, indonesia
and so forth. worried about the competition from its neighbors for low-end production. if the exports weren't coming out of china wouldn't they be coming out of india, bangladesh and so forth and does this leave many american workers in the same position? many of these jobs are not coming back. the other thing that's beginning to happen that i think is much more optimistic for american is the china now has a lot of capital and it's beginning to invest that capital around the world. china is the united states most rapidly growing major foreign direct investor. i spend a lot of time in ohio. a big former
manufacturing center, there is a big glass center. in the detroit area there are over 100 chinese invested firms in the auto parts area. there are about 90,000 americans now working in chinese owned factories. will have to see how the working conditions are. thus far the story is actually pretty good. in the 1980's i lived in ohio. i was at the time rather close to our governor james rhodes. the most popular governor in modern ohio his tree. japanese were investing heavily in the auto industry. many of the japanese cars that americans are driving are made in america with
american labor and so forth. chinese use some of this capital that they have their exporthrough surplus and reinvest it here in the united states in good jobs with proper working conditions that's a good sign. the chinese are doing that for many reasons. defuse aich is to political timebomb in the united states. twittere person on rights, china is buying up u.s. business here. brad is calling from west virginia on the republican line. caller: hi. i love c-span. you guys are great. bookd president nixon's that came out in 1980. it was called the real war.
in it he talks about the dangers if soviet union and china ever joins forces he said world war iii would he lost. this was back then. today? danger in reality thank you. guest: i think you can look at the period from the end of the cold war to the end of the as the u.s. to now has pursued a policy in europe of putting pressure on russia through the expansion of nato and so forth. in 2011 the united states adopted what was called the rebalance or the pivoted with presumably we became more disengaged from central asia and the middle east.
we would put more of our national diplomatic and military resources in asia. this amounts to putting pressure on russia from europe and putting pressure on china from the pacific. been lots of reasons that have been bringing russia and china together. i think the strategic fact is one of those things driving them together. you are now seeing russia and beijing cooperate in many different domains. in the energy area which they would do anyway because russia has to sell energy and china needs to buy energy. doing with an deals on pipelines and exploration of natural gas in russia. they have also been cooperating militarily. china's weapons purchases from russia are going up again. dippedre high and then
and now they are going back up. some of this is advanced military technology. their military have held joint naval exercises in the mediterranean and southeast asia. that's a little troubling. that chinaother day and russia cooperated in the un security council to veto a humanitarian measure to help the a pause ind get fighting in syria. the first time has cooperated on such i would call anti-humanitarian kind of resolution. i would say fred is correct. russia are working more intimately in ways that are troubling to the united states.
to round out, i have always felt that russia china relations are not a marriage made in heaven. there are lots of historic animosities. the russians have a much bigger sparserial country with population near china. china has lots of people and needs resources. the russians are inherently suspicious of chinese expansionism potentially, so they are worried about that. russia is worried about being dominated by chinese manufactured exports just like we have heard others including americans are. they have the same protectionist response. the russian sphere chinese investment in certain key industries that are very protectionist in many ways. in the end russia competes with china in central asia which used to be part of the soviet union. i think what you can say is the
u.s. sees russia and china cooperating more closely when he in fact we drive both of them into each other's arms. going back to our secretary of state the natchez and in the was to40's, his strategy drive china and russia part through diplomacy and economic inducement. the caller also mentioned nixon. that was nixon and kissinger's strategy. wouldp them in ways that promote their dominance of the eurasian land mass. the united states has to think about how can we create more daylight between russia and china, not how we can drive them together. host: caffe is on the democratic line in virginia.
i am a consumer purchases from china. the venue is ebay. cottage industry going on in china where they sell very very low. i don't personally do this but i do see other sellers split the anduct i'm going for $.99 free shipping. for 10, 12, $14 and it's incredible to cottage industry that going on. from 15 to 20 sellers. i trust them and they have 100% feet back. one girl i got on a personal conversation with her through emails through ebay. i told her i live on a farm.
she says she is in her home every day sitting in front of her computer fighting for her life selling on ebay. and that she would one day like to be able to grow strawberries, too. it's incredible. it made me cry. they do sell inferior silver. i understand that's just the way they work. free shipping for something that is $.99 apiece is incredible. i guess what we are .eeing -- i learned something it seems to me that that is what one means when one talks about free enterprise and capitalism. we just heard a description. these are all transactions that are apparently being made through the free choice of sellers in china and the states
getting together and making up his nest out of wholesaling and retailing and so forth. think that the dynamism we associate with capitalism and certainly president-elect trump is another manifestation of that same impulse. i think people have to decide do totally to live with unrestrained market behavior. and some people want more regulation than others. i guess you would say that's a political preference. what i think we just heard is just how globalized instantaneous communications have welded together a global market that i think probably very few people appreciate. host: there is still time to get your thoughts this morning. we are talking to david lampton of the johns hopkins school of
advanced international studies. for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. i would like to ask you about this new york times article. give us some of the back story around u.s. policy toward taiwan and how donald trump's call with the taiwanese president might have stirred things up. one of your earlier callers mentioned president nixon. president nixon and kissinger the late 1960's when we were in vietnam and subsequently we were dealing with the soviet union. drive a wedge to
between the relations of china and the soviet union. just injure made a secret trip in 72 andd nixon went began to put us on the road of normalizing relations with china. which we did under president china in december 1978 to take effect january 1, 1979. this entailed moving away in formal diplomatic relations. we ended up having to break them , the republic of alina, and establish former diplomatic relations with the people's republic of china. was run by ctaiwan hiang kai-shek. ,amao zedong.by
there were people who didn't feel we didn't feel -- treat china was sufficient dignity. subsequent years taiwan has become a vibrant democracy. there are a lot of people who as anack at normalization abandonment of an old friend who has now become more democratic and they look at china and see as the some sense current president of china has taken over there has been backsliding on what you might call political liberalization in china. trump and her. takes a call from the president democratically elected female president of taiwan.
set off a firestorm because a whole set of rules -- i will say rules or procedures -- had been set up in the intervening years to manage an unofficial relationship with taiwan. the chinese agreed it would be unofficial. we agreed that it would he unofficial. one of those rules was in effect the presidents of the two societies don't talk with each other. the taiwan president doesn't visit washington. there are a whole set of constraints here. when president-elect trump took that phone call he did not observe all of those earlier practices and this set off a debate in china and the united states as to whether or not president trump was -- president-elect trump was headed in the direction of changing the one china policy. if that were to be the purpose
of that call that would probably be the most alarming piece of news you could have if you are interested in stability of the u.s. china relationship. that would probably be the most threatening single thing that could happen. it's not at all clear. it's not clear what the purpose of mr. trump was in taking that call. to a was just to be polite fellow democratic leader, i suppose that's understandable. it won't make the chinese happy but it's understandable. if it's an attempt to get leverage by mr. trump -- he believes if you are going to get into a negotiation you have to have some cards in your hand. he wants better access for our firm's. he wants to stop intellectual property theft. he wants to stop expansion of artificial islands in the south china sea. he wants a lot of things.
attempt tol is an say, i can get closer to taiwan if you are not more cooperative in these other areas, one can understand that as a negotiating ploy. taiwan iser hand about sovereignty of their country, nonnegotiable. some things are negotiable and some things aren't negotiable. we have to see what is underlined. of course there's president-elect trump and trump tower and all of that. there will be these 4000 appointees i was talking about and they have their own objectives. to be seen whether mr. trump will be on the same wavelength with the people he appoints down the track. i can surely say the chinese are worried. from scott in
florida on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have been listening to the previous conversations and starting back with opening relations with the ping-pong diplomacy. my comment is just that all of the resulting -- results from were the economic expense of china through mass exit of jobs in the united saves in manufacturing to china which increased their capital. like the increase in capital in china has resulted in using some of that money to expand their military as well. of course they have used reverse engineering for trying to develop some of their military products. is the trump administration -- it's going to be very interesting.
just like you say with the taiwan call. we can guess about what's going to happen but it seems like there may be some knowledge lacking in how they are making their decisions already. host: here is donald trump's response to the controversy over that call on twitter. he wrote, did china ask us if it was ok to devalue their currency oreavily tax our products build a massive military complex in the middle of the south china sea? i don't think so. guest: that statement taken in and of itself would probably be some evidence for the idea that he sees a leverage point here. leverage to get the chinese to cooperate on areas he's concerned about. that might have been one of his thoughts. caller talked about the
ping-pong team in 1971. the caller is right to identify this is the big initial breakthrough in u.s. china relations. since that time china has accumulated a lot of foreign exchange and money and trade surplus and has used that to its benefit including military modernization. the leader when it normalization occurred in 1979 and lived until 1997 explicitly wanted to develop china economically for several decades before really moving to expand the military on a more modern and that's pretty much what has happened.
you have to decide what you think about that. that's part of the narrative. of course we have had a lot of benefits. after you weigh the benefits of this normalization against the cost. certainly you would have to put on the column of benefit that if we look on the cold war we had two wars that involved china. korea and then vietnam for a very painful decade. china was involved directly in both of those wars. and since normalization whatever you want to inc. about other trends we haven't had conflict in asia. and that i count to be a big plus for everybody in asia including the united states which is a pacific power. we have had lots of other benefits i think you have to put in the win column.
i'm a professor. we have terrific students from china as do universities and colleges all over. for the most part they pay full tuition. they are important in that sense. i teach at johns hopkins. i'm in international studies. medical school has hundreds and hundreds of very capable chinese researchers that are helping with medicine and medical discovery and so forth. you have to weigh these kinds of benefits. you i went to university couldn't go to china. at least when i was an .ndergraduate subsequently china has opened up and we can do lots more research. we understand much better how things are operating in china whether we like those things are we don't.
you have to get out your ledger and reach your own conclusion anut what the net balance is different reasonable people would reach different conclusions. my own personal conclusion is we are in a much better world when we are getting along with 20% of the world's people than when we are not. the next caller is thomas on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. my name is tom. i just want to say two things. the gentleman made a statement that americans don't have a choice. we have a choice to buy from china. we really don't. i'm a homeowner. i'm 65 years old. 70'se seen since the everything is coming in from china. we don't have a choice unless we
go completely crazy looking for an item. all of our supplies are from china. you can't get screws made in america. my clothes can't get from america unless i go 40 miles and search for it. china is really killing us. when we buy an item it lasts one months, six months, a year. leave itwill have to there because we are almost out of time. david lampton, you have the final word. guest: i understand. in this christmas season trying to buy gifts. i particularly understand what you are saying. all i will say is this has been driven by i suppose you might say the walmart phenomenon. scale of production, speed of delivery and all of these things that drive down prices have created a circumstance that china is often
the biggest most efficient producer. it doesn't necessarily mean they are best for the long run. at any given moment there are the cheapest alternative that will meet people's needs. long run the consumer has to send the message to producers that they want something different. cost and it seems that efficiency rather than where the haveyment is taking place become the criteria of our economic system. getl the producers different messages i think they will probably do pretty much the same thing. all i will say is china now is facing the same competition from the indonesians. pretty soon they will be feeling our pain. is theavid lampton director of the china studies program at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. thank you for being here.
that does it for us today on the washington journal. tomorrow morning we will be talking about health care in the trump administration with stephanie armour and amy goldstein. we will also talk about the future of medicare and medicaid with tom scully. and the former administration of the health care finance and administration. we will see you then. ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] ♪ >> here on c-span, newsmakers is next with democratic congressman john yarmuth of kentucky. then the group no labels