tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 17, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
gay and transgender rights. ld trum's tax policy proposals. ♪ ♪ host: welcome to "washington journal." tonight, bernie sanders hold a rally in california. you can see that on c-span at 11:00 this evening. the director of national intelligence says federal employees and contractors looking for security clearances will have to undergo having their social media accounts and -- some observers of the court say there were only eight members serving in light of the death of justice scalia.
for our first when he five minutes this morning, we are interested in hearing about the elections in november. particularly if supreme court nominees are high on your list for those you will vote for this november. -- for our first 25 minutes. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. twitter orch us on post on our facebook page. the decision yesterday dealt with contraception issues, particularly towards religious objectors. the headline in "the washington post." compromise seen as
possible. we will discover more dust discussed more in a moment. -- we will discuss more in a moment. ,ecision-making abilities especially from the case we heard yesterday. this is "the new york times " this morning. the crippled supreme court. this is the second time since intice scalia's death february that the court has failed to reach a decision in a high-profile case. it was earlier this year in "the
with that in mind, your thoughts this morning on this november's elections and if the supreme court and future nominations to the court by the next president of the u.s. makes up a large part of why you will vote in november. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. on our twitter page and facebook page. about 40 people as of the start of this program posting on facebook. petra writing -- richard says -- we will keep those going. let us know your thoughts.
in north conway, new hampshire on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it should be decided now and not wait until after the elections. president obama is constitutional scholar and has chosen judge garland to be nominated to the supreme court and i trust the president's judgment. if there is another supreme , i suggestng nominating a native american. verynk it would be a -- whening and positive they would interpret -- when the person is elected, if a native , if they interpreted in deciding cases dealing with the environment, business equality,
all kinds of cases. host: what about this november? is the supreme court nominee going and your thinking as far as who you will decide? caller: absolutely. host: mary in pennsylvania. independent line. thank you for calling. go ahead. go ahead. caller: i don't think it is necessary for the supreme court justices to serve a life term. servely ones that should life terms are murderers. 6-8 years andrve out. ,ost: that said, this november is the future supreme court nominee affecting who you will vote for? caller: excuse me? host: when you vote in november,
will supreme court nominees factor into your decision-making? caller: well, no. host: why not? caller: because, i don't think it is an issue. host: that is mary in pennsylvania. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. .or independents, 202-748-8002 isn't it was that decision, the supreme court looking at a contraceptive case, how it dealt with obamacare. joining us to discuss the details is a reporter from "usa today." can you give us a snapshot of this case? caller: thank you for having me. the was the fourth time
supreme court has had to deal with that type of dutch had to deal with obamacare -- has had to deal with obamacare. two years ago, the court ruled 5-4 that private companies should get an accommodation under the law so that they did not have to provide contraceptives to their employees. court came up the with or the solution the court ,ame up with for those groups they could sign a piece of paper and pass along the responsibilities to do that. this case takes that a step further. charities, universities, hospitals and the like saying that accommodation still was not good enough. they needed a version of an immaculate conception -- they
did not want to pass anything along to the government or to their insurance companies. that is fine and good, but the employees still need to be able to get cost free contraceptives. court clearly did not want to divide or cannot decide -- felt the parties were so close that they should compromise. come in months ago march, after hearing the case, they put out an unusual order saying "can you guys get together and decide this, work out something?" they asked for additional briefing from both sides, which came forward in april. yesterday, they decided not to decide. there's been a bit of progress , the government seems to be saying that maybe something can be worked out.
we will send all these cases back to the appeals courts and ask for the appeals courts to work it out. this is a makework program for appeals courts judges, lawyers, etc.. it appears to be happening because the court is shortstaffed. host: not the first time the 4-4 could not be broken because there is a lack of a justice involved. this was not a 4-4 decision. this was a unanimous decision by the court to say something noncontroversial we will have a do over. the court was angling toward a 4-4 decision and chief justice roberts and all the justices an't want to keep issuing
flurry of 4-4 decisions. it is one sentence that says let's pretend this never happened. whatever the last decision was federal court of appeals stands for that region of the country only. that were so many cases the court agreed to hear in one , sixswoop, from 13 cases court reachedthe 4-4, that would say to the ahead with what you are doing." they clearly did not want to issue a 4-4. what happens now and will
the courts see this again? caller: that is hard to say. thethese appeals courts -- two sides are sort of urged through this process to see if they can work something out. if they cannot, these will be six different appeals courts handling 13 different cases -- it is hard to imagine that this all comes back in a year or two with one -- with all the appeals courts ruling the same thing. it is possible that the court will get these cases back. almost certain after the obama administration has long since passed. president in a new office.
that is kind of speculative. , it ismeantime speculative whether this comes back to the supreme court. appearmeantime, it does that it will be left to these federal appeals courts around the country to try to work out this conflict. host: have you heard from the cheese justices -- chief justices themselves? caller: they happen very, very circumspect in addressing that. the chief justice has not addressed it at all. in the first few days after antonin scalia is death -- ath, ae scalia's de couple have said that they will get their work done. we will deal with it. it is very difficult to deal with it. they've had three decisions now that have been 4-4.
they are accepting far fewer cases for next term than they normally would. they are not accepting any of the higher profile controversial cases. just yesterday, they had more than 200 cases before them. they denied them all. the are very wary of proceeding with an even number. that is the key to it. it is an even number. they're likely to deadlock again and again if this situation continues. it is probably going to continue for a year. the justices are not going public with their most private talks about this. they will get through this one way or another. but it is clear that the supreme court is not very supreme anymore. host: mr. wolf, thank you for your time.
your thoughts on this november's elections and if the and futurert vacancy nominations are a factor in your decision-making. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. we will hear from ralph in new york. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. course, the supreme court nominee does impact my boat. that's my vote. with scalia gone, it was deadlocked 4-4. yes, it does impact my boat. vote.does impact my i will vote for bernie sanders.
theou does not get nomination, i will vote for hillary clinton. host: have you heard bernie sanders talk about nominees? caller: i have not. but he is for the people. he will nominate a supreme court justice that is fair to the men and women of this country. for: 202-748-8000 democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. is the supreme court vacancy a factor this november? interviewobama did an and talk about merrick garland and how republicans were treating his nominee. here is a bit of that interview that took place yesterday. [video clip] >> this seat became vacant suddenly during an election year.
got nervousell because he figured that some of his constituents, folks on the ,ight would be furious at me the president of the united states, filling any supreme court seat. certainly not justice scalia's c. -- seat. ,e said in a knee-jerk faction we will not accept any nominee. having made that promise, republicans are looking at a republican nominee who many say are not qualified to be president. they would be better off going ahead and giving a hearing and a vote to somebody they have said in the past is well-qualified and fair. to treat the supreme court with
the seriousness and senseless politics -- host: up next, michelle from maryland. republican line. caller: good morning. i'm watching c-span. supreme court is justices should have terms like every one else. from what's been going on for so long, they cannot agree on anything. for ay are in there lifetime, our government cannot move toward anyway. i do believe in limited terms. , wehey cannot play together need to have terms where people to people who will not be so deadlocked with blinders on. our future nominations a
concern for you as you vote in november? caller: yes. because, i've seen so much corruption in how the government is handling companies -- we cannot even have control over what we buy in our foods, labeling on foods, that is a big concern in our family. we were all of a sudden getting lactose intolerance just from drinking milk. they are saying there's no difference between the two chemicals and yet, 23 countries have banned the same chemicals that are in every dairy product we get. host: sam in rome, new york. democrats line. caller: good morning. host: you are on. go ahead.
again, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. eric in north carolina. independent line. go ahead. yes, sir. my question is this --hello? host: go ahead, please. caller: my question is this. out of all the senators that have been in office for so long andgovernors and everything hillary clinton and donald trump is the best you could come up with? host: we are not talking about that, per se. we are talking about supreme court vacancies and if that is a concern for you this november. what you think? caller: i don't reckon it is
going to make any difference at all because things are not going they doe unless something from the inside to change it, nothing is going to change, it is going to remain the same. host: what do you mean by that? caller: actually represent the american people rather than the interest of anyone that takes the office. host: david from missouri. republican line. thank you for calling. caller: thank you. hello. listen, it is very important to me because i've seen this country where we need judges that will protect and honor and actually support the constitution, not try to rewrite it for a leftist agenda like we've been saying for a long time. it has gotten so bad in this country where it seems like
arele that have morals considered immoral by the left and they are doing everything they can to either eliminate it or subjugate us to being their slaves and i'm sick of it. they, they -- the left does not want us to have any rights to protect ourselves or speak out on a religious views or anything. , theyant open borders want to let these criminals and perverts running the streets and run us and our children and it has to stop. host: marvin is up next from philadelphia, pennsylvania. democrats line. caller: thank you. not i am worried about is
that there will be somebody put in in a timely fashion. what i'm worried about is how people will think of it. there is no reason for this kind of road blocking. a lot of people pick up with -- pick up on that. thank you. over and out. host: from florida, here is steve on our republican line. caller: i think this court situation should be on the decided the way it used to be in the old times. why do you think the old way of doing it was better? thatr: it seems right now just because we have obama and
,he republicans don't like him it is like a one-sided story to the public and i'm one of them. should have the freedom to choose and we would not have all those problems which we have right now. president'sink the current choice, there should be a vote? caller: absolutely. it was happening before. i came from europe 50 years ago. i believe in the system the way it is. host: who do you plan to vote for this november? caller: i'm republican party we are doing -- i'm republican. we are doing too many things that are selfish. saying we will take the country back.
from who? we are all here. i just don't get it. host: it was earlier on the o'reilly factor that donald trump was talking about qualities he will look for in picking a person for the supreme court. [video clip] >> the biggest what you can protect it is through the supreme court and putting people on the court. the biggest way you can protect it is by electing me president. host: you will get a judge who will overthrow, overturn roe v wade. i'm going to put conservative judges on. one of the biggest things happening in terms of this asction, it could be as many five judges appointed over the next 4.5 years. probably the most important thing -- one of the most
important things is going to be the appointment of 4-5 supreme court justices. toyour specific thing protect the sanctity of life would be appointing a supreme court justice that would overturn roe v wade? >> that will be pro-life. he will see about overturning. i will appoint judges that will be pro-life, yes. host: you are vote this november weighs heavily on the next supreme court. for748-8000 is the line democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. larry from tennessee. democrats line. caller: yes, i think it will be a factor.
is going to represent how the republicans want to rule. the do-nothing congress, do-nothing senate is going to shift into a do-nothing supreme court. that represents their thinking and their actions. they also are so scared to let people decide. they want corporations to decide. bigink it is going to be a on theeflects back closing of the government when they did not get their way. it snowballs from there. host: what do you think makes a good supreme court nominee?
caller: a person that is educated, that has a history of being fair and balanced. takes thehat it,titution and looks at how it is written today, feel that out and continue that out. if we want to change the constitution, let's change the constitution. we have the power to do that. the way it is written today, for -- people, by the people those are important words. it is not for the people, by the
corporations, and that is what we have now. we have corporations able to act as people. i do not see that in the constitution. if people want to change this country, change the constitution. host: that is larry in tennessee. we will hear next from gina in mississippi. republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to first make a comment which i'm not so sure i wouldwell received -- like to say that i think it is very suspicious why we even have a vacancy right now in the supreme court. i think that death should have been investigated further. i think a very important factor in a president and a supreme court justice is that you
genuinely love america. i think that is what is lacking in our current president. i think that is what donald trump has. he is smart enough to get people who will give him the correct information on anything he does not know. i definitely think donald will be a great president. host: you would trust whoever he supports, points to the supreme court? caller: i think he would study the issue and will make the best decision. host: talking about the supreme court, the current vacancy, future nominations and how this plays out in november. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents.
kentucky and oregon today with primaries. what kentucky's race means for hillary clinton in "the washington post." the campaign hopes to vote from a different political .nvironment that is in "the washington post." the new york times this morning looks at an incident in nevada, supporters of bernie chairs, leakedwn cell phone numbers, death threats viewed across the
do not understand why they will hearing.ast have a all the president is asking is to have a hearing. vote him up or down. what is so wrong with that? well, because they are scared. what are you scared of? nominate. right to it is their duty -- why are you getting paid if you are not doing anything? we want answers. thank you very much. host: david in maine. independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. be --preme court should
every election should be very important. we need to have a judiciary that follows the constitution. that woman from new hampshire said we should appoint a native american. it is not about ethnicity, it is about constitution and law. this phony do your job is laughable. of senate was in control democrats for six years and they passed not one appropriation bill. the senate republicans have their timetable and the eirs.rats have there' there is nothing in the constitution that says there should be a department of education. don't send them money. host: who do you like this november? caller: i am a trump person.
he was not my first choice, but we have to beat hillary. do you trust any nominee that donald trump might bring to the supreme court? caller: he will get a lot of counseling on how to make that appointment, believe me. he will not just willy-nilly the deal. host: fairfax, virginia. democrats line. go ahead. i heard president obama made a come in earlier about not politicizing the justices. -- comment earlier. the other way around, the democratic party would do the same thing. they would try to block any republican nomination. that is how politics works. it should be allowed to take its natural route. let the process work and get a .ustice in there
are two of those to show you. >> the constitution says the president should make nominations to the supreme court. no exception for election nears. anyoneses to consider president obama nominates. even a former prosecutor with experience than any nominee republicans support. anotherdent obama wants liberal supreme court justice. awayra says he would take the ability of ordinary americans to own firearms for protection. says it wouldimes create the most liberal court in 15 years. but president obama no, no more political games with the supreme
court. let the people decide. host: two people on twitter. this is tj saying -- also on twitter -- donald from florida. democrats line. do -- followshould the constitution. , given up orvote down vote. the republicans cry about following the constitution. well, follow the constitution. give him an up or down vote and move on. host: how would you like to see your presidential candidate of a nomination to this report?
-- the supreme court? caller: pick a person who is qualified. credentials. and move on and let the congress on the or dissent nomination. as for mr. trump, i don't think the country is going to elect him. he is just crazy. i have more faith in our country. hired anald trump has pollster as part of his campaign team. fabrizio has worked on numerous presidential elections.
-- that is not right. they should be removed. when you go to washington, you don't learn anything, especially a democrat. they go to washington and stay knowing they have a lifetime job. a democrat will not vote for a republican. i was going to vote for george wallace. democrat -- shot by someone in the democratic party to the far left. host: troy in maryland. democrats line.
caller: good morning. it's going to be a factor because both of the nominees are so polarizing, you --e no issues host: what about your candidate? who is that? how will they approached the supreme court? caller: i'm a born democrat. of borderlinend -- hillary is the lesser of two evils. i'm 52 years old. this is the first time i really don't know. it is sad. if it were hillary clinton-donald trump, you would still vote for hillary clinton? caller: i'm torn right now. it is 50-50 right now. into that 50-50 factor
supreme court nominations or how does that factor into your decision-making? caller: i would be leaning more towards hillary. just because. host: why is that? caller: i'm african-american. she would be a little more liberal in her thinking that donald trump. maryland. in eastern, thehill talking about back-and-forth between unions and environmental activists.
seven unions demanding that the labor confederation cut ties with tom steyer. they want none of their dues funneled toward a group backed steyer thatio and plans to raise $50 million to elect a democratic president. you can read more about that website.ill's" new york. independent line. this election is really important to me because in the last couple of years, i have become a gun owner. i've owned several rifles. now, looking at the way the democrats are trying to overturn the second amendment and
restrict gun ownership -- normally, i've been liberal. this election, i will vote for anybody but hillary, whether that is donald trump or whoever. i want to preserve my passion at my localg guns of range. they will put in a supreme court andice that is anti-gun they will work their way to overturn the decision and undermine the second amendment. host: you think donald trump is opposite of that view? caller: i'm not sure on donald trump. he is so out there, i'm not sure what he is. if i wanted to put my conspiracy hat on, i would say that he was put into disrupt the gop in order to slide hillary in. i don't know about that.
it seems like he has been a wildcard thrown in there. i do not want hillary in there . i don't want any democrats. to overturnr game, the second amendment and confiscate all the guns. host: robert in ohio. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to get back to the supreme court. i don't think it is going to make any difference -- the establishment will put in whoever they want. when the supreme court is voting on laws like this gay marriage ordeal we are going through now, when you have supreme court justices performing gay marriages before that law was ,oted on by these nine idiots
that is a crime and something should be done about that. host: cj from minneapolis, minnesota. public in line. that's republican line. caller: good morning to you. i think the supreme court nominee coming into this next election is not only very -- i don't like the fact that the senate majority leader wants to block the president, the sitting president from making that choice right now. i think they should let this president appoint the chest this he has already put in front -- appoint the-- justice he has already put in front. host: gabriel. republican line. caller: good morning.
i just have to say this because i listen to "washington journal" every morning. it is incredibly important to me every day irom listen, i have to say that the american people are more misinformed than any other conglomerate of individuals in a developed country. i understand the supreme court because i've taken the time out i make the time to understand the facts about what is going on around us. these people that call in and they say the most outrageous things and you can tell -- if you are on the fence about hillary and trump, something is terribly wrong. if you are deciding like that, that means you don't understand.
anyway, let me stay on topic. the supreme court nominee is a huge factor. not only does that person stay there for the rest of their life , they have tremendous power over how things will be swayed. --t don't even know that ruth ginsburg will be up, stepping out. has been thedy swing vote every single time. he's given the majority opinion on numerous cases. and it comes down to it they are sitting there in a 5-4 -- a four-forelock and you don't have that last voice to step in and make the difference -- a 4-4
lock. host: coming up, we will hear from jared polis, the cochair of the lgbt equality caucus. we would hear from him about north carolina's so-called bathroom law. authoreconomist and stephen moore. we will discuss elements of mr. trump's plan and plans offered by other candidates. plenty of pictures from yesterday's white house ceremony. the medal of valor ceremony that took place, honoring police officers and others. 13 police officer's total. website can see on our -- a portion of that that took place yesterday. [video clip] >> perfect valor is doing without witnesses what you would do if the whole world were
watching. the public safety officers we recognize today with the medal of valor found courage not in search of recognition, it instinctively. this is an award that none of them sought. if they could go back in time, i suspect they would prefer that none of this happened. that is what one of these honorees said -- on said about his actions. we are grateful that they are here. our entire nation expresses its profound gratitude. , we are soant grateful that they were there. ,ome on-duty, others off-duty all rising above and beyond the call of duty.
all saving the lives of people they did not know. that distinction that these 13 officers of valor saved the lives of strangers is the first of several qualities they share. -- had it not been for their bravery, we likely would have lost a lot of people. mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, friends and loved ones. thankfully, they are still with their families today because these officers were where they needed to be most. at a critical time. at a gas station during a routine patrol, in the middle of a busy hospital, in a grocery store come on the campus of a community college, near an elementary school where the shirt deputies own children were students and his wife taught.
-- sheriff's deputies. they stood up to dangerous individuals brandishing assault rifles, hand guns and knives. one officer sustained multiple stab wounds. another indoor to first-degree burns to his hands and face ulling and unconscious driver from his burning car. they were doing their jobs, with a at you, what they were trained to do not like on any other day. left urgent care and went straight to work. he had to finish his shift. that sense of duty and purpose is what these americans embody. host: watch all of that ceremony on our website, www.c-span.org. i first guest is representative
jared polis, democrat from colorado, the cochair of the lgbt equality caucus. to us a bit about your thinking after the north carolina incident when the transgender bathroom law was passed. guest: obviously, it is a solution in search of a problem. isn't and there is no evidence that there is any the biggest danger is to transgender individuals themselves. presents as a female goes into a male restroom. all kinds of problems can see for them. this has raised awareness about this issue. it is a solution in search of a problem. issues, yourle ix
background is in education. how do schools respond to that? to what the president put out? guest: in my district in transdo, we've had students come through. most districts have adopted some form of policy consistent with this guidance. it's always hardest for the first kid, the first family going through it. this guidance will make it a little easier. the schools are well intended, but they are not quite sure what to do. this guidance will absolutely help school district's across the country work with families who have kids were transitioning. host: is it guidance alone or is of federal money being pulled? guest: school district don't
want to get sued either way. they want some kind of legal safe haven. they don't know what the answer is. designateupposed to another restroom altogether? what will happen if there is an incident in that restroom? that guidance is welcome. that areol districts dealing with a kid in transition want to know what the best practices are. we've had a school that originally did not have best practices and had some transgender students come through and wound up doing the right thing consistent with this guidance several years before. reduces the learning curve for a lot of school districts in the appropriate way to deal with transition. host: the guidance handed down by the obama administration -- here is what "the wall street journal" had to say.
states retain powers not delegated to the national government. how else can one interpret bathroomsguidance" on ? let the states decide. guest: i don't know what this has to do with that. requires equity -- we have laws that require kids of different races to be treated equally within the schools. surprise to of no say of course that applies to gender identity. there is a national interest in making sure that schools are a safe and civil learning environment for every student. matters of curriculum and teachers involved -- all of those are locally determined, of course. we do support our schools
federally through title ix, free and reduced lunch -- a number of programs that support our schools. of course, schools have to serve all comers. there will be some kids who are transgender and we will serve them. host: if a school decides not to follow the guidance, should their funding be pulled? guest: they have to provide a safe and simple learning environment for transgender students -- safe and civil learning environment. we don't let schools have a different restroom for white kids in black kids -- and black kids under the same argument. host: lieutenant governor of texas talked about this last week. tos is a chance for congress make it clear as far as how schools should respond. guest: i don't know what it would be.
congress hopefully has better things to do than discussing restrooms. district i represent, they've had a number of transgender kids come through. it has simply never been an issue. it has worked out for the kids. i sure hope we have better things to do in washington than discussing school bathrooms and who is using which one. host: our guest with us, representative jared polis joining us. if you want to ask them questions about the bathroom law -- him questions about the bathroom law -- 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 , 202-748-8003ople
. i know you are in colorado. did you hear the results of this from your work as the cochair of the lgbt caucus? iest: many of the schools represent have had policy coinciding with this guidance for some time. whoad a transgender student transitions over the summer. there's other schools who aren't they might move, and if it is, they have a child in one district that was a boy, they transition to a girl, they might move to another district and present as a girl and for all intents and purposes, the school knows their girl. familyoftentimes, the will not even disclose that the child used to be a different gender. it is every school district of , servesgnificant size
transgender kids whether they know it or not. whether you are black or white, whether you have a special need or you don't, whether you are transgender, gay, straight, school districts have to serve everybody. you suspect he will see lawsuits by the obama administration? guest: i hope not. see lawsuitl to strain resources from public schools. i hope nobody sues over it. reasons is to avoid having to take on liability. court -- cochair of the lgbt equality caucus. tell is how it came to be. guest: we have over 80 pro pro-equality members. six lgbt members of congress that are cochairs and they are members of congress who stand --
amend the civil rights act and add sexual orientation. people think there has been a lot of progress made. get married in every state. however, in some states people can get fired because they are gay and even more states, people can get fired for being transgender. we can appropriately protect people based on their gender identity just as we do based on race and gender. first call from philadelphia, pennsylvania. rick is on our democrats line. you are on with our guest, jared polis. on the i am confused issue. i always believed if a person is born as a male and they had surgically been converted to a female, or the opposite.
this law seems to say is even though the mail has been converted to a female, surgically, that person is still required to use the men's bathroom? me up on that? i am confused. guest: it is a ridiculous law. not to mention of course the almost 1% of people who have some degree of ambiguity with regard to their birth gender, and we usually refer to them as intersex. absolutely. if there was a man in transition to a woman, hormones and surgery, they appear and look of course it would make everybody uncomfortable. you can imagine the danger and the threat for someone who is a a woman.
it is a profound misunderstanding of what transgender and gender identity is. north carolina, jimmy is up next. go ahead. -- t: as a grandfather who hasas a grandfather a granddaughter, if i happened to be with my granddaughter who is 2.5, and i happened to be in a public or a government place, in school, what have you, if i happened to be with her and she needs to use the bathroom, i will go in with her to protect her. i will not necessarily follow any law, basically. i will be doing what i will be doing as a grandfather to be with my granddaughter. i will not let her go in there by herself. probably takeld her to the men's room, i would assume.
i have a two-year old daughter as well. again, of course, when we are in to try to is best avoid those dirty public restaurants but if we absolutely have to go, of course take her to the men's room, i would not think that is appropriate for me to go to the woman's are with her. already think there is some degree of fluidity in our designations. it is common for mothers to take young boys to the women's room and very common for fathers and graham others to take younger roast to the men's room. i think those things are totally appropriate and there is not a problem in the world with those. there are one of the -- this is one of the reasons it is so ridiculous. these things largely work themselves out. to the extent there are people of any oak doing bad things in restrooms, i hope it gets reported. there are laws we have about
that. people want to have laws about harsher sentencing and things we can do in restrooms that are bad, that is fine and it would be a fine discussion to have but it has nothing to do with gender identity and other things. hopefully we can focus on, if there is a problem, what's the criminal penalties are. from illinois, democrats line, betty, good morning. go ahead. confused with the whole day and transgender rights thing. i do not understand the people who are promoting this. this is a mental health issue. how many adults who are sane really believe the garbage being pushed around with all of this gay rights? a small percentage of people are represented as gay and transgendered. someon't you really build
more mental health facilities and treat these people, as opposed to encouraging them. this goes back to biblical days. sodom and gomorrah. this really is something that is completely out of control and i would like to see more common sense than this lunacy that i see you guys talking about all the time. guest: the protocol for gender dysphoria or people who have a theirent gender than biological gender, and i would point out there are many people born ambiguous or indeterminate gender as well. counselingl includes and treatment before that occurs, whether hormonal or surgical. extensive conversations to make sure this is what they really want and that this is best for them. the mental health professionals are absolutely involved. it is not something that should ever be taken lightly.
the involvement of mental health professionals is critical particularly when talking about in your reversible decision. host: taking a look at transgender troops. discovered is according to the survey done, to 1600 transgender individuals and active duty military, as much as 1% of the total active force. -- what is the federal government doing as far as transgender troops? guest: there are a number of and theho are out military, we should judge people based on performance. we need the very best men and women to serve in those roles. some of them will be transgender, some will be gay, some will be women, some will be
black, some will be white. it does not matter. the military is really designed to judge people based on their capabilities. chosen -- many five people who have chosen to serve in the military. is adapting to that as a society as a whole. -- armed forces yet? guest: they are working on that. there are transgender troops who served. absolutely. frankly, with the allowance to let women served in all combat roles, it is a little less of an issue regarding someone's gender. we still have issues about where they live and so on and so forth. there is a larger issue and women were unable to serve but we have made a lot of progress on that.
women are now able to serve in all combat roles. will go back to calls. and, clarksburg, west virginia. good morning. i may be one years old. how old this guy is, jim and or lady, the way he talks. here is my question. you guy or lady, whichever, you never stop. after this is all settled and but whatour way, happens if a six foot guy who thinks he is a girl wants to game?n the women's you have to let him play because he thinks he is a girl. he thinks he is a girl so he wants to shower with the other
people who can look at him in the shower and they know he is no girl. think the question was about eligibility for sports. that is something the olympic committee is dealing with all the way down to the high school level. there was a young olympian i believe, and i will have to get , was a girl for all intents and purposes, and she failed the gender test. it turns out she was at least genetically a boy and hormonally a boy, but her outward indicated she was a girl. she had no idea she was a male. determining gender is difficult to we would like it to be black and white, but god has made it a continuum. many kids were born in between. there are some people miss
assigned what gender they are. and yes, some people are transferred -- in a transition. ml transitions to a woman, one , the to keep in mind muscular profile of a woman the hormones lead to and vice versa when a woman becomes a man, they would build muscle more similar to a man. it is appropriate post transition for somebody who is fully transitioned to play forts and be eligible sports under their new gender identity. that provides no room for what the caller is worried about, which is somebody who is still a man and simply claims to be a woman. if they have not transitioned to a new gender, they would only be eligible under their current gender. it is not simply something you say. there are medical tests that would verify the fact of the hormonal or chromosomal profile.
i think that is entirely appropriate. this has been an issue in the olympics. russian or eastern bloc weightlifters, girls were actually men. it turned out they have been given hormones instead. they look like men but were not actually men. when do you become a man? you give someone testosterone and they become a male, you are having an unfair competition, something the olympic committee has always tried to avoid. host: athletics from the justice department or -- schools may not be able to hear to requirements that rely on overly broad generalizations or stereotypes about differences between strand -- transgender students or others of the same sex. what does that mean to you? i think it means everybody knows you are trying
your best on eligibility. it is not easy. and people are born ambiguous gender. to have an opera -- overly broad catchall, it is not the right criteria. we want to find the fairest. high school for -- sports, you look at fair. , thefor the student process of competitive sports, and you make sure they are included to participate in sports. ronald from north carolina, republican line, your next, good morning. i heard you make the statement about the surgery operation. you can have all you want. you are still what you are born. what about our rights to privacy? don't we have any rights anymore? one other thing.
democrat fame it -- famous statements are when it comes to abortion, keep out of our bedrooms. please keep out of our bathrooms. do not legislate our bathrooms. that is all i have to say. thank you. it is the republicans trying to legislate bathrooms and a democrats generally speaking to say we should not have these laws. i agree do not legislate bathrooms. people use the appropriate bathroom and if there is any funny business, people should be arrested, no doubt. as you indicated, people are born. again, it is important to keep in mind there are ambiguities in the gender continuum. many people are born with elements of both genders. there are people who are born with some elements of one gender and some of another. it has been conventional
practice to assign gender at times severalr decades ago, there are operations performed when they were infants, they would assign gender for life. turns out gender is more than external appearance and some people have those procedures later in life realized that was and theythe gender was had no say in the matter being a newborn baby at the time. appropriate for them to transition back to the gender they were born at. chromosomal gender, hormonal gender, and then of course, fundamentally, what we're talking about is the perception of gender that exists in all of us. i am sure there is no doubt in your mind that you are a male. i have never had any doubt in my mind that i am a male. imagine the stress someone would they had body and hormonal aspects inconsistent
with their own perception of what their gender is. from arizona, good morning, you're on the democrats line. i am sorry, let's go to chuck in washington, d.c. caller: thank you for taking my call and letting me be on the show. mewas difficult for originally to understand the different types of gender differences you are describing and i think for most people, that is the case. it seems a little clinical. for various reasons, my wife was pregnant. we know why she was pregnant but we had some genetic testing done and discovered we were having a boy. very happy to. when our child was born, however, we had a girl. i have some first-hand experience, street experience, finding out gender is not all you expect it to be.
it is complicated. is 100% female for all intents and purposes. if you look at her body very closely, a scientist would say no, she is a male. if somebody does not want her to weto a bathroom, i think ought to give those individuals the opportunity to go to a bathroom where they do not feel with other individuals that were made the way god made them. thank you for your point and you are right. there is a tendency, thank you for sharing your story, a lot of this has not been talked about much in the public sphere. not a lot of people talk about what they consider private matters. that.o not often share it is fairly common where the external appearance or the --omosomal aspect is not
these happen all the time. we do not fully understand gender identity and what makes someone know they are male or female. at the end of the day, whether we like it or not, it does not mean people have to like it, but yes, there are people in between or who have been signed the wrong gender. the best thing for them is to transition to the appropriate gender. it is not that anybody necessarily wanted it this way, but that is the way god made it and that is what we have to deal with. the best thing we could do is show compassion and make sure people's rights are protected regardless of gender identity. host: from arizona, democrats
line. caller: good morning. this is julius robert. please give me a little bit of .ime to explain my thoughts i have been looking at this situation for a long time and i believe what is happening is the world is changing a lot. in a lot of different ways, as you can tell. one of them is the sexual identity and sexual hormones and identity aspects of male or female it is. as far as understanding the situation, people have to be more humane, more understanding, and there is a thing going on in china that says, whatever floats your twinkie.
it means something funny, but it to think have freedom you are who you think you are and you are who you think you are based on mother nature that is changing the whole world. i think we have a lot more freedom based on the big changes , considering everybody is different, not everybody has freedoms. give this a whirl, ok, please? guest: thank you. i think this is a good spirit to approach the debate, to really have that compassion and support and realize that everybody should be able to pursue their dream. on, the country is founded that takes different forms. it does not mean you have to agree with the choices somebody
else makes but in the public sphere, you need to accept them just as they need to accept you. host: pulling and public opinion, there was a toll on the topic and they asked this question saying, overall, would you favor laws that a client -- require transgender individuals to use facilities that correspond to their gender at birth rather than their gender identity? do you think that sets changed over the years especially among states? hopefully this show has been educational for some of the folks who have watched it for anybody who knows transgender americans, and most people do but you might not know it. you know them as a woman and did not necessarily know they were a boy before. man, perhaps a coworker, you would not know unless they
shared with you, it is ridiculous that they would have for a genderroom they are not parity have someone and stand up and go to the bathroom and you are forced to use a woman's room just because they were a girl at one point, it is absurd. i think most americans realize that once they learn more about the topic. jacksonville, illinois, republican line, steve is up next. 0.3% of the population is transgender. the obama administration wants to open up the rest of the perversionsossible in the bathrooms and our schools. would you let your child go to that they could shower with the opposite sex. i dispute the 0.3%.
science shows the incidence of gender dysphoria to be higher than that. of course, the prevalence of intersex and ambiguous genders is considerably higher than .03%. way you characterize the issue is somewhat backward. it is not the obama administration trying to do something here. it is states. states trying to change the status quo. transgender people have been using the appropriate restroom forever. we are talking since ancient times throughout the history of our public or you have some states saying we want to use a different bathroom, we are going to say that this man with a beard who stands up to be is forced to use the women's room. that is what the laws say. we will say this woman who looks like a woman and has all of the attributes of a woman, who everybody would say is a woman,
somehow now has to go to a men's room? , but itt only chaotic can be very dangerous for the individual involved. parent, you would not know -- hopefully would have to become less common. many families would now move and the child will enter school so they do not necessarily have what society might be considered the back edge of the previous gender. that used to be the norm or we now see more families able to stay and are transitioning over the summer and i talked to a parent about transgender girl just this last week. they said their school is very good about the transition and they were able to keep the child there. i think we are making a lot of progress in this regard.
it is not something -- it is a few as a parent. there will be some students who have gender dysphoria transition in any public environment you are in and guess what, that is life. people pot like lack remain at like christians. i do not know what you like or do not, but they will all be in there in school, which is great. getociety, you have to along with atheists and christians and blacks and whites and latinos and gave people and straight people and that is what we do. we all get together and get along together. janet, west virginia, republican line. caller: it seems to me like the that, that do not want why do they pay their taxes to the state? they are paying taxes and being blackmailed. i do not think it is good for the children. i have grandchildren and i do not want them to be exposed to that stuff. thank you.
i am not sure what the taxes is being referring to. -- is referring to. take theirle grandkids or kids into the appropriate restroom. i take my two-year-old daughter into the mail restroom with me because she cannot go with the girl -- in the girl one by herself and i will not go with her. he probably take your grandson to the women with you. i do not think you accompany them to the men's room. that is appropriate and the best way for obviously kids to be safe in restrooms. that we certainly accompany them and do so in a gender appropriate way. host: another topic, your listed as a superdelegate? fan of hillaryig clinton. a longtime supporter of hers. i am excited with the experience and vision for our country she
brings, the leadership. terrificing to be a president of the united states. host: the losses, does that concern you at all? she has a larger lead in the number of votes she has received. democrats have a proportional system of delegate allocation. it is hard to get a breakout lead like they had on the republican side. in ral election. --t: do you think the jet convention process will be smooth or contested? smooth. hopefully she will pick a candidate that will be exciting to everybody. i hope it goes smoothly and that will be important to tap into the enthusiasm around some of
her primary opponents and make sure we can motivate everybody to see the major differences between hillary clinton and donald trump in november. and how disastrous a donald trump presidency would be for the economy and national security. you go and you order food, get a note, and it says, the constituency has spoken, use your power wisely, feel the burn. can you talk about this? guest: there is a lot of misperception about superdelegates it we are not put -- we are not pledged in any form. pledged delegates generally have to go with whom they support. superdelegates usually swing to whoever the winner is. that is how barack obama won the nomination eight years ago. if bernie sanders were to overtake hillary clinton, superdelegates would likely go to him. superdelegates are not in any
position to overturn the will of the people or the voters. hillary clinton is the hands-down favorite choice so she will get the superdelegates. keep in mind they are not pledged. if somehow there were a change in circumstances, they would go a different way. host: do you get lobbied about senator sanders and giving support to him? i get lobbied for anybody. trump, bernie, gary johnson. asple always like to see me conformy that i should to whatever their beliefs rp. i do my best. i have to use my judgment to lead the country in the right direction toward greater prosperity and security. host: texas, independent line. caller: good morning. i was calling about the transgender.
i know texas is considered like the bible belt. if a child is born a hermaphrodite, meaning they have both genitals, doctors have ways to tell which chromosome and that is the gender they should be. against someone who was born a full-fledged mail and had a sex change can come into the bathroom with females. that is a choice they are making. they think they were born to be a female. no, they want. we let -- they were not. andet people make choices the government wants to do things. we have more important things going on in the world. and talk that transgender's, i think. there are people starving right here in the united states. we have was going on. people are losing jobs.
currenthad four major -- countries -- companies shift down and go to mexico. again, transgender americans have always used the appropriate bathrooms. side, i thinkr you are a fellow democrat, republicans have raised the issue and tried to legislate and use governments and decide which bathroom. i think that is inappropriate. they for somebody who is a woman , legally defined as a woman, it is ridiculous to say they have to go to the men's room and it is ridiculous to say a man with andard who stands when ap is a husband and all of that, it is ridiculous to say they have to go to a woman's room just because they were once a girl.
it is what you are today, not what you once were. the appropriate way to do it and you are right that it is ridiculous for the government peopleinvolved and force to go to the wrong restroom p or i would have better things to do like job loss, getting rid of tax inversions and incentivize outsourcing of jobs. those should be our priorities, not trying to legislate like north carolina did, who goes to what restroom. in laurel, maryland, democrats line, go ahead. caller: i would like to start out by saying and sending positivity to the transgender and gender nonconforming community. the conversation has been very negative. i can imagine what it feels like to be in the throes of it. i am a gender nonconforming individual. assigned at birth.
i cannot tell you how many times i have gone into a women's restroom and somebody has tried to tell me i'm in the wrong place. is with me being an individual who was born a female. one thing that frustrates me with the conversation is it is really all sticking to women -- restrooms. a five-year-old son and i cannot imagine sending him into a restroom by himself or you hit on a great point earlier about the wise thing to do, to escort your child to the restrooms. a lot of people are saying, would you want your child to go to a restroom with someone of the other sex? escort your child to the restroom a of sending the young child by themselves. people are not thinking about it isct, studies show usually acquaintances, friends,
and families, people known by the child or individual who are more likely to do some type of perversion, molest or rate an individual. we need to be more concerned about the gender-neutral bathroom in our homes and stop worrying so much about what is going on underneath people's close. -- clothes. transgender people who used the restroom, that they feel most appropriately correlates with their gender. host: we will let the guest respond. guest: this has probably become more of an issue for it you now than it was five years ago. you are probably being singled
out more. it is on people's minds, which is more -- a more ridiculous thing. i hope through you sharing your story, through people watching and listening and learning hopefully they are expanding their horizons and learning that while you may want gender to be simple, and for most of us, it is, i am a guy and there has never been any doubt. 99.5%, i have no idea. there are americans that gender is not simple for. that is ok. they have to do it how they are worn and how they present in who they are it has always been that way and it will always be that way. i am sorry that you got kind of swept up in this but it is one of the negative consequences of having this kind of somewhat ridiculous debate, that people
even like yourself born a particular gender and do not have any problem identifying that but have some gender nonconforming attributes, you are being singled out. host: doug, go ahead. caller: the problem here comes with most politicians and just like yourself misrepresenting the arguments. problem inally no terms of being tolerant of people with different ideas. i do not want somebody with male parts, and i've had this happen, in a ladies bathroom with my younger daughter, so you are are born many people and it is confusing because people are born with both male and female parts. it is less than 1%. the argument is really about
what the general public finds acceptable. we need to stop making rates for small groups of people because rights are common. any law written to protect a specific group of people has got the law thatecause is good would cover everybody equally. think they bei this is a good thing to bring it active. what is important to all of us is making sure you've all ages, particularly children, are safe and restrooms. is look at a male child, it much more likely to be a muddy conventional e-mail. much less likely to be a woman or certainly somebody who has transitioned. i think an important takeaway you mayers is while like gender to be completely black or white, it may be for you as it is for me, it is simply not the reality.
it never has been. it is not a psychological reality. we have to do the best we can. the fact that some people are -- in transition, and there are different aspects to the transition, including hormonal, surgical, at the end best weay, we do the can and it is a ridiculous area for government to try to arbitrarily say who should go to which restroom. be taken should seriously regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. we need to make sure people are able to do their business and move on in society. host: our guest has been jared polis. thank you for your time. coming up, we will hear from economist and author, stephen moore.
>> congratulations to the glass of 2016. today is your day of celebration and you have earned it. >> your choices will make all the difference to you and all of us. >> do not be afraid to take on cases for a new job or a new that really stretches your boundaries. andespecter summer abroad the specter of living in your parents basement after this graduation day is not likely to be your greatest concern. >> throughout the month, watch convention speeches in their entirety, from colleges and universities around the country on c-span.
>> washington journal continues. host: joining us is economist stephen moore. good morning. you're relation to the john waltrip -- donald trump campaign. looked at his tax proposal, is that the case? >> a famous economist, i met with mr. trump about one month andin his tower in new york we talked about his tax plan. he had asked us for some advice about how to improve it. we had been working a little bit with him in the campaign to help make some modifications on the land. he has a pretty comprehensive overhaul with the tax some and people are really starting to focus on it. give a cell in its current
plan and what needs improvement. a plan.t is a comp has if you pay taxes now, you will get a tax cut under the donald trump plan. he would reduce the tax rates. i am an old, supply-side economist. i believe tax rates matter and donald trump does as well. broaden the base, something ronald reagan did, he could make the tax system a lot more efficient can make it more pro-growth. he would cut individual tax rates across the board. three rates, 25%, 15%, and 10%. pay taxes businesses at the personal income rate, not the corporate rate. you are helping small businesses. one of the most important changes donald trump would make, and i heard you talk a lot about this on your show, is the corporate tax. the states have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
all economists agree that is detrimental to our job creation. we are seeing businesses, you heard the term in versions. these are american companies that leave the united states or , lookingland or india for lower tax rates. it does not work anymore for america to have the highest tax rates. the trump plan, it would be reduced to about 15%. come ave if you do that lot of the companies leaving the united states, i think they would come back and bring jobs back with them. what we see on the website as far as his plan, is that the current plan? does he accept your proposal? is making changes at least from the initial things he even advocated. that came outng last week was he said something to the effect that maybe we would have to raise taxes on the bridge or something to that effect. i believe what he meant to say, because i have talked to him about this, is that he might not
be able to set the rate as much as he wants to. in other words, right now, we have a 40% income tax rate. he wants to cut it to 25%. i think what he is saying is while eamon not get it to 25 come it may have to be 29%, but i think that was taken a little out of context. there will still be a reduction of rates and it might not be as much. you asked me what is the problem with the trump plan. i love the trump plan. i think it is progrowth and it will bring jobs back to america. the concern is the price tag people put on it, that this will cost $10 trillion. i think that is an exaggeration, we toldtheless, what mr. trump is look, you can do a lot of the things you want to do, bring the rates down and so on, make the program more
progrowth, but you actually cut the cost of that in half by making modifications in the plan and that is what we recommended. i do not know whether mr. trump will take our advice. maybe he will take some of our ideas and some maybe not. host: how long have you worked on the plan? guest: i have been working on tax reform for 25 years. i worked with a lot of candidates this year. the rand paul plan, i worked a little bit with ted cruz. i like the idea of getting the and gettingwn deductions, so if you make five times more money than i do, you pay five times more tax. the sameay pretty much tax. so many loopholes and special interest provisions. you may ago -- may be able to take advantage of a lot of loopholes and i may not. i think that is the direction
donald trump would like to go. he has not endorsed a pure flat tax like steve ford did -- forbes did 20 years ago. host: we talk about other candidates as well. our guess is stephen moore. -- host: how much of donald trump's tax plan is on the idea of growth? happen, whatnot happens to the tax plan? asked.i am glad you the economy has been growing at an abysmal you low rate. the economy is on the wrong track. two out of three voters say that , that the economy is not on the right track. about the worried future the average american worker has not seen a pay raise for 15 years. i think that is the reason they were talking about this strange election where people feel
financially stressed out right now. i see it everywhere i go. mr. trump has really tapped into the frustration is not just frustration. i think there is a lot of fear about where we are headed. there are a lot of things you have to do, a pro-energy policy, regulations out of his nose, and it is a shame we have not done this already. there is so much low hanging fruit out there area i do believe, we have been growing at 2% and in the last six months, 1%, which is pathetic if we can givehe rate at 3.5%, to one statistic that will amaze some of your viewers, if we could increase the growth rate by one percentage point over the next 10 years, which is not such raises $3ft, that trillion in additional revenues because you have people working, making more money, spending more. the is the grease for economy.
we could get the economy going from 2% to 4%. my point is the best way to bring it down and lower our debt is to put america to work. that is the centerpiece. host: the corporate tax rate of 15%? guest: that would be part of it. making the tax system more efficient. i talked to a lot of small businesses who say weight, you will cut the upper tax? big corporations pay under one system and small businesses, i think you have got to cut both, the corporate rate and mr. trump is right. the rest of the world is laughing at us. plundering our jobs. just to remind people, we have seen burger king, johnson controls, walgreens talking about leaving, these are major american companies that employ tens of thousands of american workers who are saying we are leaving the united states and
going to ireland or china. it is not as if they are not .elling us we have got to get in the game and fix this. host: was this done pro bono or were you paid? sent: we were not paid one , nor what i hear it we just want to make america great again and we want to try to make the tax system as efficient as affable. there is so much financial stress out there now. what i find interesting is donald trump is really appealing ofmiddle-class, a lot blue-collar workers who just feel the economy is not working for them and they are seeing the job disappear. one way of bringing the jobs back is by tax reform. the other is just putting america first. i have a book coming out next month. we estimate we could create a
million jobs, oil and gas and coal. obama and hillary are trying to shut that down. host: the first call for you is from north carolina, this is teri. go ahead. caller: good morning. a longtime fan. let me make a quick correction. the last man said the republican started the laws against the transgender. it was actually the democrats who started it thanks to pat mccoy. he fixed that. on taxes, i would really like to know where the responsibility is is.ow our tax money let me give you an example. stimulus.n out of the that is a lot. spent 49 billion
dollars. i thought we used it hundred $25 billion in the stimulus. , would really like to know where did the rest of the money go? guest: great point. i love c-span because the viewers know what is going on and they are highly educated and highly informed. a couple of quick point. this gentleman raised the point about the spending side. we have a very inefficient way of spending money. one thing donald trump has endorsed is the idea, i think you have heard of this, where you reduce, every agency gets $.99. if you just do that for five years, people will be amazed at a map, that if you do that for five straight years, so you're getting $.95 and not a dollar, you are saving trillions of dollars. most of americans, about
everybody on the show, whether you are a liberal or conservative or republican or democrat, you believe we could probably save $.25 out of every dollar in washington. there is so much waste and inefficiency. we could save a lot of money. it gets to your question about how do we pay for the tax cut? we do it by cutting out inefficient spending. from new york, democrats line, pat is next. caller: two things. you said getting rid of tax loopholes. what congress do you think will pass law to do that? guest: that is a great question as well. i have to say you are right. this is the toughest thing to do. i have been in the town for 30 years and i have devoted to tax reform and it is a difficult thing. there is a reason those things are in there. lobbyists put them in the tax code or i wish this could be done in a bipartisan fashion. back in 1986, when ronald reagan
did this, we cut the tax rates and we did it on a revenue neutral basis. we got rid of the worst pollutants in the tax system and it worked out pretty well for everybody. an amazing historical fact. back in 1986, when president reagan's tax reform was enacted, we got the top tax rate down to 28%. when was the last time anything in the senate was 97-3? whether you are liberal or conservative, it does not make any sense. they have all the special interests loopholes that allow some rich people to pay nothing. a lot of rich people shelter so much of their income, they do not pay anything and that is not fair. john, hello. independent line. paidr: in 1940's, the rich 90 percent tax rate without the
loopholes and from the 1940's to 1973, worker productivity matched worker increase in wages. citizens, typical in america, had the greatest opportunity during the times when the tax rates on the ultra wealthy were the highest. that is what america did the best, from 1948 to 1973. after 1973, our wages dropped and there was a mass convergence between worker productivity and worker wages. so basically, all of you trying to get tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the middle-class. that is what you're all about, thank you. guest: everybody will get a tax under the trump plan. if you are a middle-class person, you will pay lower taxes. dollars lower taxes. that is a lot of money for the middle-class who are financially stressed out. they could use that money to pay
the mortgage and put it in a savings account and save for tuition. i reject the idea that only rich people want a tax cut. i think the middle west needs one as well and i disagree with that mouth is. in the 1950's in the 1960's, the economy did pretty well. remember the government was a lot smaller and we do not have the gigantic welfare state that we have today. we cannot have medicare or all these other programs or massive payroll taxes we have today. lowerx burden was a lot in the 1950's and 1960's than it is today for sure. i think bringing down those tax rates will bring us back to the golden age of the 1960's. theid extremely well in 1980's and 1990's after the tax cuts in the clinton years where we balanced the budget. the republican president and democratic president. one other interesting thing, my buddy has a book coming out in a couple of months. about the kennedy tax cuts.
people forget john f. kennedy proposed one of the biggest tax cuts in american history, and across-the-board reduction. justmerican economy exploded when the jfk tax cuts happened, as they did after the 1981 reagan tax cuts. host: do you know who is behind the tax plan of donald trump, who helped him craft it? guest: i do not do think donald trump has a small core of advisors. my friend who has run the nowaign, he is just starting to have more economic advisers. i know he has reached out to the senator who is, he used to be the senate budget -- who knows this stuff. i think he had a big hand in this. essentially what has happened is i have worked on campaigns before. when you are first starting out, the back of the envelope, let's do this, this, and this when the
campaign goes on, you describe in more detail how it will work and that is the phase mr. trump is at now. host: is his plan different than republican plans? guest: yes. we have worked with a lot of the republican candidates and they all have their plans, but i do think the similarity of these plans is that republicans generally want to bring tax rates down. hillary and bernie sanders want to bring rates up. bernie sanders has recommended a 90% tax rate. i happen to think that would be a catastrophically bad idea for the american economy. you see every business in america that could get out would get out. this gets to the gentleman's question. there is a big difference between now and 50 years ago. it was not so much in the 1950's in the 1960's. people in michigan, you are not just competing against ohio and
illinois. you are competing against people all over the world. that makes it very different. if we do not have a productive tax system, companies can leave and take their capital out of the come in. it is harder to do 50 years ago. what about donald trump's trade policies and how that factors in? dost: i am a free trader and not like the idea of terrorists. mr. trump has talked about tariffs and that is one issue i disagree with him on. that he isbelieve right that there is a lot of unfairness in the trade deals. china, they cheat, they steal. we take our technologies over to china, and we produce , whetherual property it is pharmaceutical drugs or
computer software or other kinds of products. they do not honor our patents. they do not honor the trade deal. let's have somebody sitting across the table from china and japan and russia that will take a tougher stand with them. i find that somewhat appealing. host: from washington, d.c., independent line. caller: i kind of agree with that last caller about the economy. people and companies, you should pay more than a guide paying $50,000 a year. i do not agree with these companies grieving because they
say the taxes are high. you deal with it, lobby congress, try to figure it out and get it fixed. to me, that is just awful. the american people should take a stand. personally, i go out and will pay a premium for a product because that was made here in america. ,nd one thing about inversion .t is just wrong, just wrong the growth rate, you quoted 3.4% would be great. what would we be growing or producing to get to 3.4%? democrats, one party does not even believe in climate change, and the other one does. i would like to have a deal work, even if you do not believe
it, you should believe in efficiency. we should have solar panels on every structural in the cut -- every structure and the country to reduce our energy growth. >> appreciate it. >> a lot there. last point first. incrediblee have an opportunity in this country with our fossil fuel resources. we have more oil, more natural gas, more coal than any country in the world. i live in virginia. we are a coal-producing state. i think what president obama has done to the coal industry and what hillary clinton is talking about doing is killing off the industry. these are whole towns that have been destroyed by this radical agenda. obviously, we're not here to talk about climate change. it is not something that keeps me up at night, but some people feel it is in great crisis. it is theu believe greatest crisis that ever face the planet, the u.s. is not going to do anything about reducing climate change by
shutting down our own industries. i think this is what adds to the trump, why people are rushing to trump in such large numbers. any time we shut down one of our -- how does it reduce climate change? all we are doing is taking jobs out of america. we should use our natural resources. ways to reduceer climate change but not by destroying american jobs. what trump has said, and i think he is right, whatever the climate change policy is, we should put american jobs before anything else, because american families are really hurting right now. host: christian is an oklahoma city. democrat line. is a joke.s guy i mean, why do you forget about bush? george bush put us in this position. you want to talk about obama?
how many jobs did we lose under george bush? you guys always forget that. reagan was a devil worshiper with his wife. obama. get to president what about george bush? george bush -- how many jobs did we lose a month under george bush? and you have the nerve to open up your mouth about the president, my president, per rock hussein obama? you are a joke. host: just ask a question. no need to insult a guest. guest: i forgot to mention something about the previous caller that was a good point about these american companies leaving. i hate to see that. i want american workers to be the highest-paid workers in the world. i want jobs here in america. i do not want to see them going to japan or india. a previous color said he -- a previous caller said he buys america products. i do, too.
i checked the level. there is an economic reality, which is that we're in a cold war economy. companies are telling us they are leaving because the tax code. and we should fix it to bring those jobs back. in terms of this gentleman's call. think thisesting, i is why trump is gaining popularity. trump is not running as a traditional republican. are a lot of -- i have heard some conservatives and republicans on your show say that i am not voting for trump. my point is that this gentleman is right. the economy did not do well under george w. bush. it has not done well under barack obama. so for 15 years, a lot of the it is notrs say working under traditional republican or democratic policies -- he is a businessman to it he has never been and politics, but he knows how to create jobs. i think you will see in this
election, i think trump is going to win,k an and i think that a t of people that have , they'really not voted saying republicans and democrats are running this economy into the ground and i want some the different. host: what about george w. bush's tax policy and the cuts, is there some connection there? guest: trump is harkening back era.e reagan jfk he wants to cut funding. we did not do that under the bush administration. spending went up under george bush. we had the medicare expansions and big increases in the military and so on. part of making this economy work is not just the tax cuts, but getting government spending under control, deregulation, those kinds of things, and putting it back together.
one other thing -- making sure that we have someone who is pro-business. i mean, people may shudder when they hear that. i am pro-business and pro-worker, but you cannot have jobs of you do not have employers. we need to treat our employers better or else they are going to leave and shut down. a lot of small businesses had to shut down in this economy. host: north carolina, independent line. caller: good morning. i want to talk about loopholes. it seems like donald trump has used every loophole there is when it comes to taxes. it is ironic he is doing a tax proposal to lower taxes for the wealthy. you have talked about china so much, bringing jobs back why is he doing business there? if he is really going to do something different, why would he take his own company to china? i am not understanding that. i want to know how this will affect the everyday person, a
person with college debt or a proposal how will his help me as an individual? not the corporation, not people with higher incomes. guest: that is a great point. the average person in the middle class makes summer between $40,000 and $75,000 a year, and they will save about 4500 on taxes. that is a big savings with a big financial impact. this is not just a tax cut for the rich. if you do not pay taxes, you will market a tax cut under this plan. if you pay taxes, you are going to get a tax cut. i believe one of the areas we have gone wrong in the last 10 years or so is we just have not been -- we have not put forward policies that are pro-american business policies. we had somebody talked about the climate change think it why do
we want to shut down our own industry? that does not make sense. our trade policies -- a lot of ,imes, we abide by the rules and countries like china do not. trump is a businessman. i think one of the things people say, well, he takes advantage of the loopholes. well, everybody does. i do. you do. we have to deal with our problems would get rid of the loopholes. the loopholes have nothing to do with economic efficiency. they just have to do with who has the most expensive lobbyist that can get this stuff inserted into the tax code. year after year -- 1986 was the last time we cleaned up the tax system review bit more and more of this stuff in the tax code, and after 30 years, as is junk. it looks like we through this stuff in the at take and cannot get rid of it. no is the time to clean it out completely and start over. deductions fort
children and for mortgages per would you consider those loopholes? the public kind of accepts that. you mention the mortgage deduction, and then there is the charitable deduction, those two americans care most about. eductiony, the child would be retained. i would not consider that a loophole. we have proposed, and i do not know if donald trump has raised this, that a caps on the amount of deductions in the individual can take. say $50,000. the vast majority of americans do not take $50,000 of deductions. a lot of people do not even have $50,000 of income. who does take that? rich people do, millionaires and billionaires. and warrenll gates buffett you take billions of dollars of deductions. if you cap them, they do not
have anywhere to shelter their income, and they will have to pay whatever the rate is. we found, back in 1986 when we did this, the amount of taxes paid by the rich increased. that happened under kennedy and under the reagan tax cuts. in both cases, when the economy did better, and people do not have ways to shelter their income by taking advantage of loopholes, they actually paid more taxes. a lot of people do not believe that, but if you look at the statistics, asia's the percentage of taxes paid by the rich increased after the kennedy and reagan tax cuts. host: rick from poughkeepsie, democrat line. caller: thank you for c-span. i would like the opportunity to respond after your guest responds to me. but i do not think it is necessarily -- it is nice to check the labels. i think that is a nice idea. it is not going to cut it. the idea of having our guys sit across the table from their guys
when it comes to trade matters, that is not handled dust be tough on them, that is not going to cut it. -- and that is not -- be tough on them, that is not going to cut it. the asian countries are unfair traders. they do not call it taxes when we want to bring our products over there. as your guest knows, they have fee schedules, fee after fee after fee. we are open for their business to come here. they are often so complicated that he might as well be considered closed countries, especially the asian countries. they are unfair traders. we need the justice department to go into full effect and hold these countries responsible. i am not a lawyer. i am not the most well-spoken at
these matters. but you clamp down on the unfair and stop them from the currency manipulation and the fee schedules and fight fire with fire, and i'm not saying a trade war, but fight fire with fire -- host: got you. isst: i believe this man well-spoken on this issue. i agree with what he said. it is much like what donald trump is saying, that other countries do not fight fair, that they violate the agreements and steal our technologies. americans are sick of it. i am a free trader. goods andystem were services can flow over borders, but it does not work when one country cheats and another does not. why haven't we done it? good question to it why haven't we forced these trade deals? that is what mr. trump is asking. why haven't the politicians from both parties -- republicans and
democrats, for 40 years, have done nothing to make sure these trade deals are done in a fair way. this gentleman is right. i am not sure if anything would change under hillary clinton. i think she would continue with obama's policies, turning a blind eye. i do think having somebody tough at the negotiating table would be a nice, refreshing change. he is right you do have to get the justice department, get the people at the trade office to monitor and make sure these countries are playing fair. by theillary clinton, way, recently said, when it comes to putting her husband to work, she said putting him in charge of revitalizing the economy because he knows how to do it at what does this suggest about her approach toward taxes? guest: some viewers may be shocked to know me say this, but i think the economy did very well under bill clinton, no question about it. there was low unemployment.
he helped alan's the budget. it was not just bill clinton to it republican congress. budget.lped balance the it was not just bill clinton. we had a republican congress. presidenton ran for as a genuine new democrat. he was for trade, for balanced budgets. bigger government is over. he was for welfare reform. he was for regulatory reform. a lot of the things that happened under bill clinton were very reductive. the has totally abandoned that. most liberals do not even like bill clinton to they think he was too conservative. if hillary were running as a true bill clinton moderate centrist new democrat, i would probably vote for hillary clinton people but she is not. she has moved so far to the left, and the democratic party, unfortunately, to its demise, i
think, has moved so far to the left on issues like climate change and government spending. hillary is not talking about a tax cut. bill clinton cut taxes. hillary is talking about a big tax increase beard so that is what concerns me, that hillary sounds much more like bernie sanders. she sounds a lot less like bill clinton. host: independent line, james from richmond, virginia. caller: good morning, mr. moore, and thank goodness for c-span. i have a couple comments. first off, i came through the reagan years. i was a reagan supporter. and i am still sitting here waiting for the trickle-down economy. it has not happened yet. then we got along pretty good there for a while. then bush came in and i lost 50% of everything i had. then obama came in, and i got most of it back now. so i am doing fair to well.
a copy of you save this, because you are talking about what donald trump is going to do, and i am a junkie -- of -- i am aam retired junkie on all of the news. and he said today that he is a businessman. he will pay the lowest taxes he can get. so what is he going to do when he gets to be president? he will have to show that he is the lowest taxes he can get, and you skip right over the bush years. there was a question earlier about it. guest: great point. we have heard this point expressed several times. there is a frustration and anger about the collapse of the economy in 2008. i believe what gave rise to this trump phenomenon was that people saw the horrible ruins of the economy in 2008 and 2000 nine
with the financial crisis. then we had a president that was going to fix things. it is better today but way below where it should be. i think this is what is giving rise to this new phenomenon, that people feel it did not work under bush, certainly has not worked under obama. i think this election is pretty simple. people think the economy is doing well and the country is going in the right direction, they should vote for hillary clinton, no question about it. if people think we're on the wrong track and the country is in serious danger, which i think we are, with massive debt and environmental policies putting american workers out of work, regulations string lang business, etc., now you have to vote for change. stranglingons business, etc., now you have to vote for change. trump is talking about very different policies. host: virginia, independent line. caller: the american people have to understand the global economy
is a scary place. ii, we got used to the heavy industry and indiana. ohio, and it was astounding. people do not even understand it now. , they say bring back jobs, bring back jobs. in other countries, their modernized. if they come back here, they will be that much more modernized. host: we're losing the connection a bit, so we will leave it there. guest: great point. look, i am optimistic about the u.s. economy. i actually think it would not be that hard to get us back on the right track. i think tax reform is really important. amnesty is a gigantic issue. i think that with the right energy policies, using coal and oil and natural gas, that means
welding jobs, piping jobs, construction jobs, engineering jobs, the old industrial jobs we had in this country. it would produce a lot of energy jobs. right now, the united states has the lowest cost energy of any country in the world. lower than germany, china, so we should exploit that. that could cause a big comeback of american manufacturing. i listen to your show all the time and have appeared on it several times. have into theuld manufacturing jobs in this country? we can bring them back. i actually believe that. we can build cars in this country and steel and technology and transportation and chemical industry. all of those can come back. i believe that we could see a big american renaissance with the right policies. host: one more call, john, i, maryland. caller: good morning, and thank
you for c-span. mr. moore, this will probably sound a little strange because i am like a lot of americans who do not get the opportunity to voice their opinion. two solid points. earlier.politicians i am a democrat. i'm not against some of the things that donald trump stands for, but businessman, billionaires, they're just like politicians. they know about the laws in the united states and know how to maneuver around the laws. you know how to put the people in place to change laws. bill clinton is refreshing to hear a republican give kudos to democratic president for the good things he has done. we do not have a lot of that in the united states. just like when president obama
ran for president. the republicans said from the onset that our main directive is to keep this man from doing anything, anything. stokes the further divide we have in the united states of america. it there.to leave thank you for the call. the difference i see in this country and his town from the 1980's is how partisan it has become. if trump ones this election, it will have been by bringing willons of democrats who cross over, blue-collar democrats who believe things are going wrong in this country, and that could lead to a new era of bipartisanship where trump can potentially reach across the aisle and get some of these things done. it is true, trump knows how the rules work, and he is taken
advantage of a lot of those, but he has committed himself. he has said, i know how rotten the system is, and i'm going to clean it up. i think after 50 years of having career politicians in office, maybe having somebody with an outsider perspective, maybe it is about time for that. i think that is one of the reasons he has risen so much. i know where closing, i will say this, i think of we get things right, if we make some of the stages in our policy, america really can be great again. i do think we can see a big boom were everybody does fabulous am a black, white, gay, hispanic. it is not working for just about anybody. the only people that have made gains the last 10 years have been the people on the top 10%. the other 90%, no gains or they're losing ground. in the end, people will take a very closely get donald trump. i think a lot of people have not made up their minds. host: thank you for your time. guest: i love c-span. thank you to the callers.
people want to be heard. host: thanks for being here. in the final time together, about 40 minutes or so, we want to hear from you about november's elections, specifically since there are eight members of the supreme court right now and nominations are being talked about. in your votingr in november, supreme court vacancy? democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues after this. q&a, a sunday night on vanity fair columnist and slate magazine founder talks about his : a beginnersd age guide on living with parkinson's disease." what i really meant,
-- is it, was thinking going to affect my thinking? thinking is how i earn a living. that became pretty important. neurologist,his what is going to happen? he was trying to tell me it was not such a big deal. he said, you may lose your edge, as if that was just nothing. i thought, gee, my edge is how i earn a living. it is why i have my friends, maybe why i have my wife. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on q&a. "washington journal" continues. host: is future nominations to the supreme court 80 citing thisr when you vote
november? democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. as far as thoughts on supreme court, hillary clinton tweeted this test 60 5 million americans voted to reelect the president of the united states here at he has nominated a supreme court justice, as the constitution requires. bernie sanders said the constitution is very clear. potus has the duty to nominate scotus. donald trump says hopefully the republican party can have a big paving the way, for many great supreme court justices. that is how the candidates feel about the nomination spirit we want your thoughts. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. courtpic is the supreme in many of the papers this morning, including usa today.
from a case decided upon yesterday, which puts decisions of the lower port -- lower court -- the supreme court decided not to sign monday whether religious objectors must play a role in offering contraceptive coverage to their employees, sending seven cases back to the federal appeals courts in search of an elusive compromise. your calls coming in. this is ryan from massachusetts, democrat. go ahead. caller: hello. i think the justice should be .ppointed by the president sanders.ng for bernie -- [indiscernible]
overturning citizens united. host: why do you think that is important to focus on? money --ecause [indiscernible] barbara is next from louisiana, republican line. , it is going, yes to be a big issue. it should be a big issue. and we should wait until we have toewly elected president fulfill the vacancy. ist: why do you think it worth the wait rather than make the decision right now? caller: seriously? host: yeah, why? mean, we can quote so
many people, like harry reid and joe biden, you know, so many people on that side -- [laughs] -- host: but let's hear from you. why do you think it is important to wait? i -- the american people need to have their say. are trying to have their say with these oddities that we have going on. [laughs] normal average american decide. .ost: ok
that is barbara in indiana. iris is next up, independent line. i don't think the people in this country care one way or another, or have time to take an interest who,e bickering, who is what is what, who is nominated, who is going to get on it. our cases don't appear before the courts. they are selected. we can have three supreme court justices for all america cares, and nobody can name them. seriously. it is one of those washington things going on. they try to take issue with things they don't really have two delve into like war and peace. host: so it is low on your personal list as far as choosing the next president? caller: well, i would like to see an independent come in. more libertarian,
constitutional, somebody that will go back to the basics because that is still what they are teaching. that is what our children are growing up with. our grandchildren are growing up with. they are still learning the old writings, and the come out, and look at what is going on? everything is interpreted. why don't we cut out these goals and everybody interprets life? that is where we are going. by the way, new houses are being built without basements. host: iris in indiana. richard teaches law and wrote a piece looking at the numbers of the supreme court, supposedly, so there was a replacement named for justice scalia. he writes -- rule is no such thing as a of nine. the constitution states only there shall be "one supreme court" and as few or as many " inferior courts as the congress
may from time to time ordain and establish." it is up to congress to decide. chuck in indianapolis, indiana, republican line. caller: hi. it is definitely going to be one of the prime issues for me. i am an attorney. the court now is balanced and we are on the edge of having the constitution pretty much go away . if a democrat is elected, there will be two or three appointments probably in the next term. i don't think we can afford to courtberals dominate the for 20 or 30 years. they would definitely, as one of the callers said, they would want to do away with citizens united. which seems to be a big case for
the left. even though -- well, they think the court ruled that corporations are people, but that is not what it was about. it was about the first amendment . that applies to everybody. it applies to "new york times" and applies to cnn. restricteds are not under the first amendment, and neither are associations, unions. the first amendment applies to everybody. and money cancels out. so we have money from one they geton or unions, to spend their money. they get to have their say. and a pretty much cancels out. if money was such a big factor, jeb bush would have been nominated. people still decide. host: chuck in indianapolis.
"washington post" writes about security clearance. the federal government saying federal investigators looking at applicants backgrounds to determine of trustworthiness will not -- i'm sorry, should've had the headline. social media council be put into play when it comes to looking at background checks for federal employees and contractors. the investigators looking at backgrounds will determine her trustworthiness will not ask for passwords or log into private publics, limiting postings. when i find information that has no relevance to whether person should have access to classified be wipedon, it will from government servers, the policy says. it is an official acknowledgment and social media is a tool and social security clearances -- security clearances. dolores, tennessee, democrat line. caller: good morning.
i believe just like the callers said about two or three ago, ahead of me, i think the public should elect them just like we elect everybody else, and give them a term. why should they be their own somebody in the country to have a lifetime job? it is a lot of, oh, those people up there. and their minds are not sharp as they used to be. america, wake up. we need to put people in there, young people on that court instead of those old justices. host: you think they should be open to a general election than? caller: yes, i really do, just like everything else in this country. we have all of those old people up there. and those people's minds are not as sharp as they used to be. they really are not. on the ballot it so we can vote for them just like everybody else. they are the only somebody who have a job for a lifetime. i don't think it is fair. workers go out there and working
hurting themselves every day. we need to put them on the ballot. thank you. host: jake, massachusetts, independent line. good morning. caller: i think they need to independentey get in the presidency so we have a supreme court leader going there that cares about people. i mean, right now the congress is writing laws, having the supreme court right laws you cannot sue pharmaceutical companies. you know, the ones that are making these opiates. -- sue someone if they hit you with their car and cause pain and suffering, but you cannot sue the pharmaceutical companies for giving these pain pills to people and then their kids are taking them and turn around and dying. these politicians are responsible for the deaths of
all of these people. host: so what independent candidate -- caller: make it so you cannot sue them. host: what independent candidate do you want to see in the white house then? have not heard one talk yet that is honest, to be honest with you. i want to see somebody who starts telling about how your letting and 10 million people every year i'm 10 your visas. you say it won't work for people without education, yet your letting 10 million people come in on ten-year work visas that don't have any education. host: louisiana, democrat line, james. caller: yes, i am retired military and i believe the supreme court is vital to the country. and it needs to be no more republican or conservative -- merrick garland is a middle-of-the-road supreme court justice that would do great.
well, he is not a justice yet. we need somebody who is going to attention to the constitution and not the parties. and that is what the politicians are trying to do. that is why the republicans want to wait so they can vote republican in and the democrats want a democrat. they both saw it the same way. host: sent you mentioned merrick garland, what stands out to you about him? fair ande seems to be middle-of-the-road. he is not biased either way. he doesn't seem to be liberal and he doesn't seem to be conservative. he just -- both parties seem to care for him. both hearty say good things about him. i don't know a lot about him personally, but just what i have seen on c-span. host: if you go to president obama did an interview with buzz feed, the website, with their legal reporter that took place
yesterday, one of the topics was about the president's choice, merrick garland, and talked to the reporter about process or his nomination process and the response from the senate. here's a little of that conversation. vacant seat became during an election year and mitch mcconnell, the senate republican leader, got nervous because he figured that some of his constituents, republicans and folks on the right, would be furious about me, the president of the united states, filling any supreme court seat and certainly not justice scalia's seat. in knee-jerk fashion, he said, we're not going to vote on it, despite there is no precedence for that. now having made that promise, republicans are looking at republican nominee for many of
them say isn't qualified to be president, much less appoint somebody. it seems to me, they would be better off going had and giving a hearing and a vote to somebody that they themselves in the past have said is well-qualified, it is fair, and, you know, to treat thesupreme court with seriousness and the sense that it is beyond politics that it deserves. host: you can see the total interview, about 30 minutes in length, on the buzz feed website from our twitter will stop -- from our twitter. republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. my main objective of my phone call today is i think we have way too much that is going on
that our forefathers decided, for instance, in social security, we paid into it and them only died at 65, we got social security. at the time they put that end, almost no one lived to be 65. then we have the supreme court people who also did not use to live old, and so we had policies in place that should not be in place any longer. we should appoint supreme court judges, but not for life. from 80 15 years. because back in the day, that was how long -- that was a lifetime, 15 years. we should not have people up there for 40 years. the american public should vote for it because i think the american public is way too emotional about most things to really be objectionable. i think they would forget the constitution in favor of whatever the topic of the day was. , that is all io
wanted to say about it. this country really is in trouble. i have never seen the hate like i have seen, and i am a very old person. it is concerning to me that we have been so divided by this administration. a story out of south korea in "new york times company that the united states, south korea, japan for the first time will jointly test their ability to detect and track north korean missiles. conducted onl be june 28 shortly before japan and south korea are scheduled to join the american led rim of the pacific exercise, waters off hawaii. the nations agreed after it was emphasized after the long-range missile. north korea said it use the rocket to place a satellite in orbit, but the united nations has banned it from launching it arockets, calling cover-up. caller: hi. you got to me today.
to me, people have to -- the supreme court is very important. but so are all whole lot of other issues. the one thing about the supreme court, we're talking about interpreting law. i come from a state that people took propositions on the ballot all the time and the people vote on it, but they can never implement it because it ends up being illegal or anything else that happens -- a waste of time. we have so much waste in government. let's just have things come up and determine whether or not they really fit into our constitution. i also object strenuously to the lady who said they should wait so the people can vote. the people voted twice the last two national elections to put obama in the president. and if you don't like obama, then the people who voted him in don't count, according to you. anyway, good luck, supreme court.
full number of justices on the supreme court so that things can be decided. thanks. host: democrat line, maryland, this is tony. caller: good morning. saysagree with those who [indiscernible] supreme court justices have been appointed for life, and that is the way it should be. elections have consequences. you have a president that will january,f his term in and he should pick a supreme court justice the way we have for many years. just because we have this president elected but the house and the senate doesn't like, we want to hold that seat vacant. which is totally unfair.
it makes no sense. that is all i have for you. have a great day. journal"ll street looks at energy companies going bankrupt or have gone bankrupt in light of shopping oil prices. saying some 77 north american energy companies have now declared bankruptcy since the start of 2015 soon after oil prices collapsed from a peak of more than $100 a barrel and begin weighing on balance sheets. 100 75 oil and gas producers around the world are in danger of declaring bankruptcy. the situation is nearly as dire for another 160 companies, many in the u.s., according to a report from energy consultants. it goes on to say oil companies, for many american oil, is, the story goes on to say, the oil markets revival is too little, too late, talking about the recent rise in some oil prices. cleveland,s in
georgia, republican line. caller: good morning. elections will be affected or the supreme court decisions will have an effect on that. garland isric concerned, i figure would be a waste of time for the republicans to consider him because if they do a thorough venue of him, he would be voted down because of the way he positions in investigating the oklahoma city aircraftnd flight 800 decisions and other that would, you know, if they really did a good vetting job, that he would not be voted for by a majority. host: when it comes to oklahoma
city bombing and the flight 800, what do you mean about the way he investigated those? give some examples. caller: there were witnesses that were not brought up in the that there were some people from the middle east involved. and when these people from the middle east, if there were people like that and had been -- to me, it was a cover-up. that if, you know, they were brought, you know, in as witnesses, that we might not have had 9/11 occur after that. mcveigh did not say very much as far as what he knew. he just pretty much was tightlipped. so you really did not know, you know, who else was involved. maryland, democrat line. caller: good morning. this is my thought process.
merrickident chose garland. you should be seated. if the republican party want to play games, the senate i'm speaking of, what could happen is even if donald trump wins the presidency and the senate changed back to democrat, they have 20 days before donald trump could be seated. you know, the first of the year is january 2017. and the senate is seated. they can rush garland through. they can do that because they will be in control. so if they want to play games, i believe that the senate would still seat him, even if donald trump becomes president. issues, when it comes to the supreme court and the senate, really coming up as far as political contests,
specific senate contests, looking at some races, specifically when it comes to the topic of the supreme court, here are two of those ads. >> the president should make nominations for the supreme court in the senate votes, note section for election years. to is pat toomey reviews and do the job pennsylvania elected him to do? he refuses to consider anyone president obama nominates, even a former prosecutor with more experience than any other nominee with bipartisan support. choosing his party leaders of playing politics with the supreme court. call senator to me and tell them put the constitution before his politics. obama wants another supreme court justice. the nra says he would take away law-abiding americans ability to own firearms for protections. small business leaders say he would side with special interest, unleash untenable agencies like the epa, and her jobs. "new york times" says it would
create the most liberal court in 50 years. tell the senate and president obama no, no more games with the supreme court. let the people decide. nominees -- do future nominees to the supreme court affect your vote come november? you can post on twitter and facebook as well. the social media channels, by the way, continues well on after this program is over. so if you want to make your thoughts known there, you can do so. , cantor, louisiana, independent line. you are next up. hello. caller: good morning. forink we should vote supreme court justices -- i think we should vote for --thing that the politicians i think even the people who give us the information, reporters,
being an avid member of the tyt, not only then should people, once they do become elected, i think we should all must kind of take back to the spartan kind of way of thinking. you know, if they don't do well, maybe we should punish them for that. i think we should even vote after they are done and judge them if they have been wrong or not. i don't believe just politicians should be able to judge who becomes into our supreme court. sorry, i am so nervous. who do you want to see in the white house this november? caller: bernie sanders, even know it is probably not meant adequate possible at this point. -- mathematically possible at this point. type of first the supreme court nominee doug bernie sanders would make, what would you like to see? caller: if you would be on the supreme court? if bernie sanders
became president, what would you like to see as far as the supreme court nominee? caller: i pretty much almost trust his judgment on that. i'm sure he would know better than i would. assume. people would i think that given his record, he would do -- at least as far as in line with what i would want him to do -- do militarizing our police and doing all of that, i think he would give a supreme court justice who would do that in that sense to give us what we needed and to not, you know, over, you know, give people too harsh sentences or even to help with like personally right now i upe an uncle who is locked because a mandatory minimums, he might be getting out, thankfully. and i just took more people, you
know -- i hope people like him can help. host: ok, that is alexander in virginia. a story this morning taking a look at a court trial specifically focusing on the u.s. representative saying that according to his lawyer, he is a victim. his lawyer said on monday at the start of his federal corruption who still understand to pay off his debts all without his knowledge. from illinois, here is richard, democrat line. caller: yes. host: hi, you are on.
caller: i would like to see hillary clinton get in and a liberal get back on the bench. we have had a lot of decisions for the last couple of decades. it is time for a liberal to get in there and have the liberal side of the supreme court for once. that is all i have to say. host: what kind of decisions would you like that liberal to make? caller: this contraception stuff , it is going way too far. i am a catholic. nobody is attacking me. i don't wear my religion on my shirtsleeves. let's put it that way. i think we all do get the religions out of politics. like the father said, the forefathers always said, religion should be separated. that is what i got to say. host: grass valley, california, our republican line. caller: first, i would like to
respond to the statement this man just made before me. they did not say keep religion out of politics. they founded religion -- i mean, politics on religion. the getting to the supreme court justice line, i don't think they should be in there for life. i don't think senators should be in there for life. if we're going to have a voting system, we should be able to vote for the supreme court give it and keep -- senators a term limit also. i want to say when we get a supreme court justice, the judicial should not be the ruling -- there are three branches of government. judicial is only supposed to uphold the law, not make laws. thank you very much. host: ohio -- ashley, let me take this. senator sanders will be in california, a rally he is holding in carson, california tonight. you can see that at 11:00 on c-span. also go to c-span.org for more on the primaries taking place
today. mason, ohio, independent line. this is tom. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me speak. i think it is so important to have a supreme court justice listen to the public to where they have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and be protected by the second amendment. and i think that is the whole crux of the matter. host: with that in mind, then you're looking at donald trump or no? caller: i definitely am donald trump. ." roger, independent line. caller: i would like to make a suggestion for supreme court nominee. one that i think will appeal to a large broad spectrum of political ideology. gerry spence. that guy is brilliant.
a brilliant legal mind. you don't have to be a judge to sit on the supreme court. that is just convention. there have been supreme court justices that did not have a judgeship before. they had legal and political aryans. -- experience. host: on television from time to time? caller: yes, that is the one. you look like george washington to me. host: and he wears a leather coat with the fringe sometimes. caller: yes, the wild west look. it seems to me like quintessential american. host: what specifically -- caller: a tri-corner hat. host: mike, independent line. how are you? caller: i think the next president will make a big difference on the supreme court. the problem was, with w. bush
putting it a lawyer from the white house, the oval office, and secondly, when roberts admitted he did not go by the law when he made his decisions on gay marriage writes, what people thought -- [indiscernible] with the court making a big decision, they should figure out what is going on. there should be a name with what is going on. the banks.e and these are being diverted to the white house. at the the supreme court should rule on all of the funds from volkswagen, the billions of dollars, the billions of dollars coming from goldman sachs, should go toward the deficit. period. there should be a name for what is going on with the diversion of these funds after deregulation am a after bailing
payers, they can write it off. this should be looked at and addressed. if you listen to the white house, they are blaming the banks. dallas, texas, democrat line. caller: i think it is important understand what the republicans are attempting to do with blocking merrick garland's nomination is unprecedented. therefore, what president obama should do is -- welcome in november, when they lose in november for allowing donald trump to pretty much hijacked their party, the general clinton should nominate the most liberal supreme court justice and give them a taste of their own medicine. host: that is shone from dallas, texas. the house of representatives are
just about to come in. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. may 17, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable john j. duncan jr. to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker p t