tv WJ Catherine Rampell Wa Po Columnist on New Trump Admin CSPAN January 22, 2017 4:46pm-5:30pm EST
as the head of the commission and his major decisions and issues he sees facing the trump administration. >> the idea that you should scale back the fcc and give responsibility to the ftc is something that the networks have been pushing for years. before i took the job, there is an headline in the washington the that said, "here is how theorks intends to gut fcc." it would be tragic if that happened. >> joining us is a syndicated columnist to talk with us about
the dawn a response to some things that donald trump has said that he would like to do with policies on health care, immigration, reproductive health, the economy. a lot of it was about galvanizing debates and, as the editorial wrote today, throwing cold water on the idea that donald trump is an avatar of all
americans. are a lot of voters who are not supportive of his policies and his platform. >> what cohen do you think he set in his opening speech and what were you hoping for and listening for? somethingoping for more conciliatory and something that would indicate that he would be a president for all americans. he has undermined that message through tweeting and other comments about haters and losers. i was hoping for more of it all was more and it consistent with the things said during the campaign and a line
of red meat for his base and i would say that it was dark. of could see the influence wing bannon and right nationalist sentiment that was present throughout the campaign and i thought it was more antagonistic and that pivot that was supposed to be made has proven to be elusive and something indicating that he was willing to work with those who worked with him, that is what people were looking for and i'm not sure that he communicated that message. is catherine, a syndicated columnist.
we welcome your calls. we welcome your comments on twitter. the president is wasting no time in signing executive orders and we understand that the house will begin the work on the process of defunding the federal funding for planned parenthood. what are your top issue concerns, as the president begins and the congress gets underway. >> this is a question for me? ok. what becomes of the affordable care act? the new president and the republican congress and senate are in a tricky position. lukewarm are generally on obama care, but like all of
the things that it does, making sure that people with pre-existing conditions get insurance, for example. so, a concern is what happens to the affordable care act, but i think it will be tricky for republicans to dismantle it, because components of it are well-liked. it is a concern. itching for a trade war and that concerns me, considering what he made to with expressing support and withdrawing support for allies. there are concerns with nato members as to whether the united states will continue to have their back.
the source of stability among the world. a visiting scholar on the school of public service from 2016 to the present. we sought a column with the title of millennials needing to learn to lose. you are a millennial. what was the point of your column? talk was more of a pep despite the negative headline. i was getting at the fact that, for many of us who fit into this lumpy generation, the millennials, most of our lives have seen
of the children who came here from other countries and were undocumented, views on the international climate change expansion ofe issuescare, a lot of that were important to us. we have seen progress with a president who has a vision we generally agree with and i think that a lot of people around my
age got a little bit complacent in kind of forgot about history in the long run bending towards justice, to quote martin luther king. there are reversals, sometimes. a lot of people were disillusioned when a new president was elected who did not uphold our values. basically, i was talking about the fact that there was shellshocked about this political development. viewsve to bear in mind of immigrants, despite anti-immigrant rhetoric, people are more positive on the
contributions immigrants make to this country. on a lot of these issues, public side.n is on our i argued that we lost and it was paralyzingd somewhat , but the public opinion is on our side. if we lose, we will win again. trump and his daughter are very close. does that offer you any there willope that be some value retained? >> to an extent. interesting to watch the influence that ivanka trump
has on the administration. donald trump talked about familyng access to leave, which is unheard of for a itsidential candidate and was unusual. leave and maternity with thepopular american public, even though it has not been embraced by the republicans. trump wants her father to support -- plan, issues with that because fathers did not have access to it. according to interviews that she gave, it would only be available to the birth mother and not the
adoptive parent. happeninged that is and it will be interesting to see the influence she has and whether she is able to put this issue at the forefront of the republican agenda. if you look at the comments trump made, he did not mention family leave and he talked about taxes and economic issues. my hope is that this will be put on the agenda and there will be a constructive dialogue. >> we have calls waiting. let's go to de soto, texas. >> i think parents have done a horrible job with few millenniums.
it is not just about you. themillenniums forget people who got there. ussident obama begged all of some of these out senators and these congressmen. he was correct. -- paul the one who ryan, especially -- has been medicaid,ut medicare, social security. oldfather, he was 10 years when his father died and this is another thing that i would love for you millenniums to look at. after martin luther king died, there was an interview in south dakota or north dakota, somewhere.
it was called brown eyes, blue eyes. another thing i would like to say. , you don't want , because she is siphoning the money. >> catherine, want to address a couple of those and her comments? >> the turnout was not great. the youth turnout is almost always disappointing and embarrassingly low. there have been exceptions to the and i believe in vietnam era. generally, people who are young
do not vote in high numbers and it is a complaint, in the same way that complaints and perpetual our a complaints about youth. you can go back and listen to the song about what is the matter with kids today. there are a lot of accusations and this has been made going back to generations as far back as aristotle. host: go ahead. guest: that said, it is very important for young people to vote just because there is a young tradition of young people not turning out and it doesn't mean it has to continue. young people need to vote in the midterm elections. it is not just the presidential election that matters. the gap between voter turnout amongst the older and younger segment of population is largest during the off year elections, so it is important for young
people to vote. that is part of the reason that we are where we are today. i think young people got complacent that their values were taking hold amongst the american population, that we had seen all of these political achievements happen, some were obstructed, but nonetheless, there were a lot of achievements that happened on the american climate change and other issues, and people got complacent and said, everything seems to be moving along as it should, why do i need to vote? in this election, they were a lot of again people who had reservations about the democratic candidate hillary clinton. we have not touched on that. that said, there views were more closely aligned with her policy positions in the victor, now president donald trump. host: we will talk about hillary clinton in a bit. in chicago, independent line. caller: good morning. ui for c-span. i had a chance to glance at -- thank you for c-span. i had a chance to glance at your article and i wanted to say i would do this -- millennials
need to learn how to lose, return to good sportsmanship. a lesson to the planet on how we do it. the bones and meat are good on the article. i do not think you have to worry about from on social issues -- worry about trump on social issues. if i had access to the congressional research service, i would have them look at a 1% across the board pay cuts. what that means is that for 7:25, -- 7.20 five dollars, the minimum wage, that would mean on one day, -- 7.25 dollars, the minimum wage, that would mean one day and in two days, less, and in one month, $10 less and in one year, $120 plus. at the top of the pay scale, which is she 15, approximately
$150,000. what it means is a five dollar a day pay cut. and then it is $25 a week less. they are making $150,000 a year, ok? in one month, it would be 100 -- host: what would be the purpose of this? tell us the purpose of doing this. caller: the -- first of all, it would be a study. you do not just instituted without studying the ramifications, but the purpose that i see is lowering the deficit, finding a new funding source and making us more
competitive. as i said, something that could be studied but should not be implemented. host: we will get a response. guest: well, i agree that it is the case that we could find more efficiency than the federal government. it is not clear that implementing an across-the-board pay cut for all of our civil service employees is the right way to do it. i think it will make it much more difficult to get good people in government, which i presume is an important objective. i think a lot of civil servants right now are demoralized because of the antigovernment rhetoric, because many of them will be led -- executive branch departments will be led by people hell-bent on actively dismantling the agencies at the epa, department of education, maybe department of energy. rick perry has gone back and forth on whether he thinks it should exist area and i thinks he does now that he will be leaving it. in any case, i don't necessarily agree that this is the best way to make our government more
streamlined and efficient with an across-the-board cut. obama himself talked about the need to use a scalpel. i am trying to remember the phrase, use a scalpel rather than a hacksaw or something like that to nip and tuck the government and actually make a more concerted and thoughtful for about how to make our -- thoughtful effort about how to make it more efficient. cutting the pay will encourage people to leave. host: the previous caller talked about midterm elections. michael on twitter says statewide elections are more important than the national election nowadays. not a lot of star power to millennials you may not care. guest: that is true that the state elections are incredibly important, particularly since there has been obstructionism at the federal level.
i imagine that will update given -- abate given the white house and legislative branch of control by the same party. at the federal level, there has not been a lot of action in terms of policy changes. at the state level, the opposite is true. we have had huge changes in terms of policies on abortion, labor issues, redistricting for that matter. state-level elections are very important. they have become more important since a lot of nonprofits and advocacy groups have oriented themselves toward implementing state elections that have produced templates for legislation that eventually get past in lots of states around the country. one group distributes legislative templates that are more right wing, so anyway, i wholeheartedly agree that state and local elections are very important, don't get a lot of attention, have low turnout. amongst old and young people. i would like to see more attention paid to those issues and more voter turnout.
one of the challenges there is partly be -- that the media, the media's business model has been circulating the drain, for lack of a better term, for the last decade or so given technological changes. one of the subsets of the media hardest hit is the state and local and regional newspapers, so there is a lot less attention and fewer resources being paid to what happens at the state level, so if there is corruption or legislation -- non-corrupt legislation that impacts people's lives -- there's not a lot of reporting and people don't know, so these not glamorous elections and the people who benefit from them are not getting the kind of visibility and attention they deserve. host: calls, tony next in louisiana. republican caller.
caller: good morning. thank you for having c-span. host: you bet. caller:[sirens] i am outside this morning. i'm enjoying the beautiful sunshine and the new america that will come out of the darkness that we have been experiencing in the last eight and sometimes 16 years if you look back over the things that have happened. [indiscernible] of young ladies and older ladies like me who were in the streets yesterday in the last few days, that is so wonderful to see. until he got close up and we started talking and asking questions. it costs a fortune to go to washington this weekend and this week during the inaugural week. how in the world did they afford, these young people in college, how did they afford to be there?
wouldn't that money have been better spent on the actual issue? my charity begins at home. host: that is toni in louisiana. steve next in corpus christi, texas, democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. a few quick things. the caller talked about the democrat party being racist and stuff like that. back in the 1960's, all those southern democrats that did not want to vote for him in the 1960's, they went to the republican party. on obamacare care, all of those people, republicans within the amendments trying to screw it up, they did not vote for the thing.
on the jobs act, they keep confusing it with that stimulus, two different things. the american jobs act would've put people back to work and republicans are not the, they said we cannot afford it. if we cannot afford it then, how can we afford it now? republicans have been screwing this thing up with the longest and trying to pace obama, obama, and they have been against the men from day one. host: catherine rampell, steve pointing out an area of agreement to it president trump and democrats with infrastructure spending. you talked about childcare. guest: yes. something relating to child care, family leave, the kinds of issues on which there are broad agreements amongst the american public. democrats and republicans because these are kitchen table issues that affect families,
whatever their political view. potentially, the could be agreement amongst political leadership. i would hope some solutions would be discussed and reached. on infrastructure, an interesting question because we do not know what trump's plan will look like. it has been characterized as anyone trillion dollar infrastructure plan. however, with that $1 trillion refers to seems to be the total amount of public and private spending and most of the public spending will come in the form of tax cuts. the example, we don't know how they will construct this particular policy so that it primarily spurs new infrastructure investments as opposed to only going to existing projects or projects already in the pipelines. what matters is what is on the margin. we want to have new spending as opposed to just having a giveaway to the activity already occurring. that is unlikely to get the kind of additional projects we want
done. other issues that one could imagine some agreements -- let me think about that. like i said, there is a lot of frustration about the health care system but a lot of the frustrations that exist are about issues that have long before the affordable care act was passed, and the system is confusing, and insurers give you the runaround and you file a claim, these are issues that predate the affordable care act, obamacare, and are very frustrating to many americans. how we will address many of these issues to ease the burden on americans and put or give them greater access without you know creating long lines at the doctors office, for example. a caller alluded to that earlier today. those are real challenges and now that this e-book parties working in good faith toward
addressing them. for the last six years or seven years, most of the debate about this has said you may think you made things worse, are you did. i don't have a lot of faith that we will impact see thoughtful policymaking on this issue but i hope i am proven wrong. host: the caller joining us. caller: good morning, c-span, america. basically, what we have here is you are talking in wide sweeping arrays. millennials believe public opinion and you are talking -- it is president trump.
you keep calling him trump, so that shows the bias of you. guest: i refer to obama, as well, sir. it is shorthand. caller: can has nothing to do with that. a few don't want to argue, that -- if you want to argue, that is great. this is what people rose up. you guys live in your little bubble. you used to work in, "the new york times" now at "the washington post." you even have a journalist degree? because what you are is not journalism but opinion. you are -- guest: that is a form of journalism, sir. i am an opinion columnist. caller: exactly. and "washington post" -- what is your subscription? here is a prime example, do you know it your average daily circulation --
host: derek, catherine rampell is a syndicated columnist and one in which she appears. we had her on to hear from opinion people, people who ride offense and pieces -- op-ed's and pieces, so what is your question to wrap things up, derek? caller: there enough, thank you. [indiscernible] less than 500,000. i know "new york times" is great 320 million people in the united states of america and we have these people regurgitating the same information, all to bring down the candidate because they disagree with him, but putting it in the premise of we are journalists. you are not. i think you are all -- like "the washington post," "the new york
times," other outlets, you are ruining your own industry. they like attorneys more than you because you cannot find facts and truth. host: derek, we will let you go. you had your say. catherine rampell, would you like to respond? guest: you can read my writing and see citations to the survey data. i was not making this up. there are reputable organizations. resorts organizations and polling organizations whose work i referred to. lots of reporting for every piece i write. i look at numbers, data, i talk to people, experts, nonexperts. i am internally list. i have been a journalist or full-time for 10 years now. i do write opinion pieces. that is true, which means that i am not writing on the one hand and on the other hand kind of work, which is what i used to do. i encourage people to look at my overall work at "the new york times," and "the washington post."
i appear around 150 newspapers, not just a book with the washington post." , and to defend "the post" you know, we have had a huge increase in subscription in digital subscriptions as a result of the election because americans believe that journalism is worth paying for and that we do important work, not just my work, obviously. we have had wonderful reporting, exhaustive reporting from >> of mine, like david farenthold, who did fabulous work looking at donald trump's charitable donations or lack thereof over the last decade or so. so we have been important work. i encourage people to subscribe because we need a free, independent press to hold the powerful to accounts. host: john in annapolis on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for c-span. i appreciate it. i want to say i was in the seat today -- d.c. today and
yesterday and have observed on your networks and other networks and did half of the people had gone and registered to vote and build it on november 8 or were out there protesting, we would not be having this discussion right now. it would you totally different discussion. our -- i worked at run the government tree -- i worked at an elementary, and i called them bern out's now and you cannot vote for them unless they change the democrats, and they acted like, who are you to tell me who to vote for the kind of registration i should have? i was just like, to bring a supporter -- the bernie supporter that is your giving you the same day registration form so you can vote for bernie like i did. host: the headline after the
election, touches briefly on hillary clinton, but clinton could not win over white women. what was the reason behind that you think? guest: that is a puzzle. there has been a lot of reporting interviewing women who voted for trump, white women who voted her child, which said -- voted for trump, which surprised people that he did well for women, given the size and the sick, timid, including bragging about his ability to sexually assault women while he was on the hot microphone and did not know it. it is a puzzle. i think part of it had to do with the fact that hillary clinton was dogged by a lot of bad press, some of it deserved, some of it not deserved. there was already this with the scandal following her, but to a large extent, there was not a smoking gun.
the fbi investigation continued basically up until the election and comey's letter did not help. the fact that women voted for trump or white women voted for trump has to do with the fact that they had some reservations about hillary clinton. some of it may have to do with the fact that there are a lot of people who are frustrated with the way the country is going and wanted to change. i think that is the best way to sum it up. i happen to think that the vehicle for that change is not particularly the one that will help women, given many of trump's stances on reproductive
rights and what he wants to do with the economy. many kinds of positions that sound nice in the abstract, but when you think about them, have a lot of potentially destructive implications, things like a trade war, for example, bringing back jobs that have been replaced by robots, not by workers in china. some of it was the appetite for change. it is hard to say. a lot of people to some extent don't actually recognize what the policies that were in the air were -- that were on the table i should say, what they will actually do but working families. going back to the affordable care act, or example, it is very unpopular, and part of the reason why those two conditions exist is that people do not understand what the affordable care act does andriy in the media have not been a great job explaining it. so if you are a woman frustrated with the cost of health care,
you will vote for the guy who picks up and not recognizing that the things he says he will do will make it potentially more expensive. host: on the issue of reproductive rights, the 45th anniversary today of the rove be wade supreme court decision. -- roe wade supreme court decision. to think and then a four years it will be overturned? guest: it doesn't seem like it will be overturned on that condition alone, or placing one justice. it would not surprise me though if we do see h being away -- seat of chipping away of access to abortion that we have one that women have had in the last 45 years. if we see some of that chipping away, a lot of states have been passing legislation trying to push the boundary of what they can make it, of how difficult they can make the access to planned parenthood clinics, other kinds of clinics that provide abortion care, rezoning, mandating doctors who work at clinics who provide abortions privileges, so there are other
kinds of challenges that are nipping away at access to abortion care, and it would not surprise me if a change in composition of the supreme court means that once those laws work their way through -- because they are challenged -- and once those challenged work their way through the court system that many are upheld if the competition of the court changes and there's reduced access to abortion. i think it would be surprising if we saw a complete overturning of roe v wade in the landmark decision and abortion was no longer required nationwide. who knows? there are a lot of elderly supreme court justice members, so the composition of the court could change more rapidly than it appears right now. host: five more minutes with catherine rampell. arthur in staten island, new york, republican line.
caller: hello. god bless, happy new year to both of you. let me say right now, i have listened to you. this is the first time i have heard you. i think you have been giving a balance, touching both sides, not equal, but a balanced point of view. new qualification -- to question your qualification is [indiscernible] i guess i would because a baby boomer. whether i agree or disagree, i appreciate the point of view you brought forward. if he could name two more things that you think would be important that this president has said he would do that would affect us to democratic, republican, whatever.
i would appreciate that. do not let us all these turn you off -- us oldies turn you off. you keep going. guest: two are for the support and hope you read me and my colleagues. journalism is important, especially in this era and i encourage people to support it and read it. two issues that will probably be on the table. one is taxes. tax reform. president trump has specifically said he is interested in overhauling the tax code. of course, paul ryan and the republicans in the senate and house are on board with it. exactly what form the change will take is in the air, but most likely, it will be
top-heavy, meaning that the wealthiest americans or the highest earning americans will face the biggest tax cuts but there will be some for the middle class and sorted the lower earners. there may be some people at the lower end who end up paying more, so keep your eye on the ball on that. another issue is what happens to medicaid? we have been talking about the affordable care act in the abstract, but it will be interesting to see what happens to medicaid and other social safety net programs -- food stamps, for example, given that there has been a lot of support in the newly elected president, as well as republicans in the legislature for block ramping. basically that means they just give the states and amounts of money and you figure out what to do with it rather than sort of sharing the cost of certain programs like food stamps or medicaid. just saying, here is your money,
do it you want. historically, when that happens, states have sometimes of used this flexibility and used it to plug budget holes rather than using it to directly to help lower income americans are people who have lost their jobs and are struggling to get back on their feet. also, we have seen less money in general prisoners programs. so welfare reform in the late 90's is the prime example that basically they gave you these blocks to states and they only gave them money in the long-term sun was not adjusted for inflation. over time, the amount of money available to help poor people declined because of inflation, so we might see something similar happening if there is block ramping for social safety net programs and states will get the lump sum payments but may not increase over time. it will be interesting to see how they decide how much money
state gets and how it is used. host: you can read catherine rampell that "washington post." she is on twitter. thank you for being here. guest: thank you for having me. >> watching king journal is live every day. philip will discuss what trump is expected to do in his first day and week in the white house. migration policy institute will talk about the actions on immigration. be joined to talk about the approach trump may take with the defense department budget. the sure to watch washington
journal and join the discussion. night on the communicators. headingler talks about the commission and issues he sees that will face the administration. >> this idea that you should aale back the fcc and give lot of responsibilities to the ftc is something networks have been pushing for years. there was a headline in washon posat sai tha