tv Washington Journal Lisa Mascaro and Tara Palmeri Discuss the Week Ahead in... CSPAN July 17, 2017 11:20pm-12:21am EDT
the course of barack obama's presidency, there were scores and scores of people in illinois who had known him and earlier were deeply disappointed with the trajectory of the obama presidency. disappointed in two ways. disappointed that barack obama forgot the people, many of the people, most of the people who were the central people to his political rise. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> looking at the congressional agenda this week, we talked to lisa mascaro and tara palmeri from politico. this ishington journal, about an hour. >> the week ahead in washington. two guests joining us this morning. the white house correspondent of politico. and lisa mascaro of the "l.a.
times" and "chicago tribune." thank you for joining us. we have had a break because of sin under mccain's health condition -- because of senator mccain's health condition. now talk about passing a bill in the senate on health care. guest: this can be seen in two ways, pro and con, on the outcome of the health-care bill. on the one hand, i think people will say, well, this buys a little time, helps leader mcconnell shore up the vote. there are 10 republican senators on the fence on this issue. more thany lose no two, and we already have two opponents. with sin in their mccain -- with senator mccain being out this week for that surgery, it does allow leader mcconnell a little more time to do the behind the scenes negotiations.
on the flip side, we know this bill is deeply unpopular. the opponents are coming out in full force. there is a very viable theory that the longer that this stays on the line, you know, it is just not going to do well and will fail to get the support it needs. we will see. host: tara palmeri, the white house's approach? guest: the white house has been hands-off in terms of its dealing. you are not seeing many tweets actually,, and lawmakers want a bit more support from the white house, but they seem to be so wrapped up in the russia issue. mentioned inf mine the playbook yesterday that the white house was telling communicators they were focusing on energy week this week, and they were shocked to hear that because, obviously am a why
would you be switching to a different topic when health care is at the top of the agenda? aidesof the white house were kind of moving on except the legislative affairs office. also interesting that when they may actually vote, vice president mike pence will be in the balkans at that time. he was really helpful in helping across the line in congress. he was on a trip in asia and came back, and he has a lot of clout on the health. president is a newcomer in washington, so it is good to have mike pence in the game. but they will have to try this without him. does it surprise you? guest: it was more helpful the second time around. when they first tried to get the bill on the floor of congress, president trump was very
involved on the working of the vote with hard sales tactics at the white house. he was in a meeting with a bunch , --orrectional leaders congressional leaders, and they were saying to pledge to the president you will vote on this bill. trump looks back to his real estate time in new york, and he is not so concerned about the policies as much as the packaging. that is a concern for lawmakers. in his eyes, he really wants the tax reform. that is number one on the agenda for him, but he cannot do tax reform without some of the savings in the health care bill. ist: as far as arm-twisting, money involved? i suspect it is. guest: tara is right that the president has been hands-off. senators are not as easily
influenced as members of the house are. they are really grounded in their long-term policy, and they are looking for what they can do to improve this bill for their states. leader mcconnell has about $200 billion extra in the bill him up beyond the savings they needed to hit for the budget rules and what the house bill sent over, so he has a lot of walking around money to make some deals. you are likely to see some of that. i am sure we will hear some of these great nicknames for the deals people might remember from the earlier go-round. the adjustments in the medicaid reimbursement rates or different increases into the risk fund that will help backfill some of the costs that folks are worried to getting pushed onto the states and you are hearing the governor's say,
you know, we cannot handle these costs and cannot handle having so many people lose coverage. i will say to the point about the president, it is true, he is hands-off. vice president pence will most likely be needed to be in the chair to either break a tie if the senate comes to a tie, needing a tie-breaking vote, or to usher this through so it passes. host: we will talk about these and other topics. to ask questions, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. tara palmeri, you talked about the hands-off nature of the president. does that mean nothing comes from the white house, as far as this break is concerned and as we wait for vote? guest: no, behind-the-scenes is
being done by the legislative director who has great ties on the health, very respected -- great ties on the hill, very respected. they have been trying to get conservatives in line with them. that is their daily work. are they getting the kind of executive support from the president? not so much. he has his hands full. do they necessarily want it? in a way, the fact we're talking about russia is good for them because the story is not all about health care, and they are able to make some of the tweaks without the press on them in the same way. it is not driving the national conversation the way it would if it was only health care. i know that sounds a little strange, but they are acknowledging that some of that it is almost not a bad thing that we are distracted on another issue. host: thanks for the segway. where is the white house on this? we heard a lot on the sunday
shows yesterday, particularly when it comes to jared kushner and with this meeting. what is the strategy to address this issue? have heard,what i they are still coming up with a strategy in terms of dealing with the path. they have attorneys handling the day-to-day. i am hearing the idea that they are political me a fights and the reason don jr. met with them was because of a lack of knowledge of the rules, pure ignorance, and that there was really no malicious intent or intent to collude. of course, they are going to push back. it is just harder for them to get it on the record on tv, because you see the stories keep changing and the information given on tuesday is different from information on friday. you saw sean hannity take that and heew with don jr.,
put his own credibility on the line having him on the show. i just think, you know, how much longer can they rely on these big-name tv hosts to give them that when days later the hosts feeling burned? it is not just surrogates. now they are burning the media that has been most favorable to them. and another day, another russia revelation. that is what you will be seeing over the next six months. one white house official said to me, you know, this means that the investigation will last six month longer now. that is all that don jr.'s revelation means to them. politically, it is a nightmare. host: nancy pelosi said last week, about jared kushner pose a security clearance, and that topic came up last week. this is of interest to those who
investigate this as far as the security clearance for jared kushner. guest: the situation on the hill on russia is an incredible divide. you see democrats raising all these issues. they want jared kushner's security clearance revoked. they want further investigation. they want the intelligence committee in the house and senate to bring these folks and over again, we talked to republican senators and numbers of the house, and they are very reluctant to weigh in on russia. senator burr from north carolina, chairman of the , withigence committee others, they are doing work in a bipartisan way, working mythology -- methodically to go through this. but they tell us, contrary to what we were saying earlier, that this is not an issue back home.
they tell us they go back home and their core voters are more focused on the issues of the election. of course, health care is very big and on a lot of voters' minds. of course, jobs in the economy, these sort of stubborn problems for so many americans. and i think the issue for many republicans is the base of republicans who voted for trump, you know, they're not really moving away from him, that 25%, 30%. and those are the republicans or the voters that the republican lawmakers are just not interested in upsetting. people often say, well, people are not afraid of the president, and to the point earlier, the lawmakers maybe are not afraid of him in the room in terms of making a legislative deal,
because he is more about the packaging and the marketing of the deal and let's just get to a deal. he is not in the weeds on policy in a way that can frighten them, in a way that makes them sort of walk into the room and be concerned about what kind of make or break offer he may give them. but they do worry about him turning his fire on them, his sort of twitter fire we saw that in the house when he ganged up on house republicans and the freedom caucus. he told the chairman of the freedom caucus in the meeting, you know, i am coming after you. senators are reluctant to have that kind of attention on them, so they do not want to, sort of, overstep on the russia issue, and that has led to a lot of criticism of the republican senators on why they are not doing more to raise questions
and hold the president accountable, hold the administration accountable. i think time will really tell how much the republican lawmakers can withstand this. host: let me put some calls into the mix. up first,are minnesota, republican line. go ahead. caller: yeah, this is paul. , would like to find out especially like with health care and stuff and the folks up there in the senate and stuff, i come from a town in northern am speaking ofi towns with 100 people up to possibly 25,000 people, rural areas. i was wondering, do those folks ever get up here to be able to see what the people have to live like? medical help and all this?
with all the overdoses in all the other states and stuff and when a person is disabled, they are on the same kind of meds that doctors do not want to be able to take care of that prison after 20-some-odd years -- host: lisa, do you want to go first? guest: i think the lawmakers -- i do not know who your representative is up there, but some of them are trying to have town halls and meet with people. some are not. some are a little more reluctant right now because the political tensions are so high. but i will say that your voice matters, right? i think people often feel that members of congress or people in washington do not hear them or do not listen and, you know, lawmakers will tell you that that is not exec we true.
yournk if you call lawmakers' office, if you write letters, if you show up for the events that they are having, if youlet your concerns known, know, there is a reaction. i guess i would just say to let you representative know. you can always call the capitol switchboard, tell them where you are, and they will patch you through your district if you do not know. you can ask on the switchboard or ask others, and they will patch you through. there are folks answering phones or you can leave a message and let them know. guest: i agree with lisa. a lot of times when you go into the senators or congressmens offices, they say that the phone lines are burning up. even if you do not get through, the fact that the phone is ringing means something to them, as well. i think they are acutely aware as to how things are playing at home. on the russia stuff, i think
that in one way, even though trump is in the white house, he is still very in touch with his base in the heartland, and he knows that russia is so big and so foreign and far away in may -- and way more complicated than the other things he needs to be dealing with like jobs and health care. while it is a big story in washington, they can keep playing it like a distraction, but i think he will end up losing the base of he does not deliver on the things he promised, so that his wife told care should be his focus. host: on the democratic line from florida, alfred, hi. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that we got social security and medicare ,lready in place in washington the government, and there is medicaid. everything is connected to a
number. everyone of us, even now, when you are born, you get that number. why not have the people, instead insuranceinto these cooperations where their ceo's make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, why aren't we putting that money into our own pile to cover these medical problems? host: as far as medicaid is concerned, i know senator mcconnell said a couple weeks ago that if they cannot get a health care bill passed, they may have to support things like insurance markets. the trump administration has expressed about what they wanted to do as far as letting obamacare die or let it go -- are they willing, if for some reason they cannot get to a place with a pass a bill, to make these efforts to support the current programs under the
affordable care act? is this something the administration is interested in? guest: the rhetoric to the world's we are going to let go obamacare crash and burn as a lesson to the lawmakers if this does not pass, and it furthers trump's story that obamacare is a monumental disaster. imagine they would try to say that, because in their eyes, it is a political lesson. i have not heard that. guest: it is split. we have heard leader mcconnell and a number of senate republicans who know markets are having trouble in some areas and when the new round of premiums come out, they know costs will spike for a number of people on the individual marketplace. so there is this concern that after seven years, republicans have promised and promised to get rid of obamacare, and if they do not, they will lyrically -- politically own it and need to know what to do to fix it. yesterday, collins,
talked about that as far as medicaid is concerned. i want to play a little bit about what she had to say. [video clip] >> i would respectfully disagree with that. first, let me extend my best wishes to my friend and colleague john mccain as he recovers from his surgery. that has led to a delay in consideration of this bill. this bill would make sweeping and deep cuts in the medicaid program, which has been a safety net program on the books for more than 50 years, ensuring that some of our most double or moral systems, our disabled children, our low-income seniors receive the health care that they need. it would also jeopardize the very existence of our rural hospitals and our nursing homes,
which not only provide essential care to people in rural america but are also major employers in the small communities in which they are located. and worst of all, these changes would be made without the senate having held a single hearing to evaluate their impact. host: that is one senator's perspective. lisa mascaro, you go first. guest: senator collins is one of the two hard no votes, and she raises a host of concerns in that segment we just heard that are shared by a number of republicans, the fact that there have been no hearings, the fact that this is an enormous cut to medicaid. in the house, maybe in some of the house members' districts, they do not have a large medicaid population, but senators am a they represent their entire state, and she is
talking about this issue that so many senators are facing, the concerns of rural hospitals, concerns over the lower income, the children, folks in nursing homes, all those folks that have been covered by medicaid, like she said, for 50 years, and then the expanded safety net. that is the problem with the affordable care act. 30 states expanded medicaid over this -- under this law, and now to roll that back -- you have heard this among lawmakers, that they are also concerned, and you saw this on the senate side, is, inis narrative that many ways, accurate, that they are rolling back the taxes, right, so they are getting rid of all the taxes that were imposed on the industry come on higher income individuals that they now reinstated on higher income individuals, and cutting
the medicaid funding. and a numberorker of senators have told us that they did not like that narrative and the way it was unfolding, which is why, and the senate version of the bill, they have reinstated and allowed some of those taxes on investment income and the higher income payroll tax to remain and also provide some continued revenue stream that allows the senators to think about maybe keeping portions of the affordable care act. the senate can only afford to and then have mike pence, the vice president, come in and break the tie. soy are at two right now, one more senator out of this 10 or so who are on the fence could really spell the end for this bill. host: tara palmeri? lisa is theusly,
pro on the professional side and how it is playing there, but i know there is a lot of anxiety in the white house, but there is also a feeling that they are ready to move on in some ways, even if this would hurt their constituents. host: we saw tom price talking about coverage yesterday on these issues, wanting the administration to address these concerns, particularly on medicaid. guest: right, trump opted promise everyone would be -- trump did promise everyone would be covered. to say people who would lose coverage of people who never wanted to have to buy coverage in the first place as part of obamacare. ted cruz has talked about the coverage. up their ratcheted angst against that, saying that it is unsustainable. a tough momentin
right now, especially with the cbo score coming out today or tomorrow. guest: that was one thing we did not mention that i think is another big aspect of this, that the cbo has said 22 million americans more would be uninsured. that is a big number. some of that is people choosing not to be insured, but 15 million or something is the medicaid population no longer having coverage. cbo was supposed to come out with their score today. we now understand it is not coming. i think that that cbo score today, had that still but a high number, which it is likely to be, you know, that would be another source of discomfort for these republican senators as they were scheduled to vote this week. now with the delay on that, it does two things, provides some
breathing room, and it also provides of the administration and the white house, hhs, tom price, to come in with their own estimates. we heard the white house would be coming out with some of its own estimates. some people will say that is like the umpire calling the game. but the council of economic advisers, hhs, they can certainly score this bill and give a sense of what the impact would be, and that would be another way to help the white house and republicans maybe have a more favorable score that would make it easier. host: lisa mascaro of the "l.a. times" and the "chicago tribune." politico, thef white house correspondent. a call from north carolina, independent line. want to say the people i talk to who are trump supporters and not trump supporters in north carolina,
the supporters do not seem to concerned with, like, russia. they seem to be supportive. it is like he is in there, this guy who spent millions of his own money, and he is in washington, and they are rallying around that as much as the policies. but the people who are kind of against him are very in tune with russia and medicaid, the , like the obama health care plan. that is one thing i noticed. state had, my representative is mark meadows, and he sent that to eat, president trump sent that tweet, and if anything, it was like comedy. people laughed like it was the funniest thing. they would say, oh, i better not say anything bad on facebook or twitter because i will get read tweeted i donald trump. was really unusual.
mark meadows' district in north carolina, and is kind of like , and his, polk relationship will be good -- he did one town hall that was very positive, and then he had a fundraiser in brevard, and there was a group of democrats who opposed him. they said he was not as involved, so it was kind of a courier relationship -- kind of a mercurial relationship. to me, the people that support trump, ar are not concerned about those issues. much if that is true, how is the president and administration still banking on those supporters? guest: they are banking on that 30% base sticking with him. i heard about a shift in tone from some people in the white house, that they are actually a bit down because of the fact that these emails that don jr.
seemed to substantiate a lot of the reporting they dismissed, and a lot of people have said, oh, it is a conspiracy. that is the line they have been using to but it is hard to try to say that now when the proof has been released by the trumps themselves. does it show collusion? not clear. does it show intent for collusion? not clear. but it is not good. it shows that you cannot take them, per se, at their word. before the strategy was big news, big news, we know how to make contacts with russians, and now we see they have had contacts with russians, and they are the one who made it this time. i think it will be tough. back to the point of the fact that most americans do not care and are not paying that close attention -- maybe they are watching cable news on mute, or they are reading the local
papers but the front page is not dedicated to russia the same it is in "the new york times." how is it affecting their lives? there are big issues out there like democracy and freedom, and then there are things like being able to pay your bills, making sure your kids are going to the right schools, getting health care, having a job, and those are the issues a lot of people end up voting. host: we saw the white house bring in a new player for the legal team, ty cobb. what is his role? guest: i am not entirely sure, but i think it is a single that they are taking this more seriously, bringing on a new attorney into the white house. this person is obviously a member of the white house staff, civil servant, paid for by taxpayers. have been a lot of questions about how they will fund the legal bills. they are thinking about having the legal bills
associated with the russian investigation. there are a lot of questions if the rnc can do that. of -- the legal issue is another bit, and we will see how the trumps end up paying for it. but a go to deep into it, lot of people have said in the past, the trumps have been known for not exec we wanting to pay their legal bills, so it is not surprising that they are looking for political places where they can get the coverage. it will be very expensive. guest: i think those are interesting questions. the other thing i would say, i think we will be had in a to midterm election season, and i cannot imagine the rnc will be wanting to's a lot of money on legal bills -- we will be
heading into midterm election season. the other thing is just that, regardless of whether the noters, you know, are or are paying attention to russia, what we see over and over from the white house is a sort of inability to stay on message and the frustration it has an congress israel. -- and the frustration and has in congress is real. they have said for so long, republicans, give us back the house, and we can do x, y, and z legislatively. give us back the senate so we will have control of congress. we saw that with obama, and they cannot really work together. then the party went to voters and said to give us all three, and we will be able to repeal and replace obamacare, tax reform, and we see now, seven months into the administration, this should be prime legislative season, right?
the first 6, 7 months of a new administration, new congress, sort of the honeymoon after the election, before the fall mid turn campaigns start getting ready for next year's midterm elections. this is the time when big things are supposed to be happening, and we just, over and over, see the party's and ability to agree among themselves -- we see the ability to agree among themselves, no closer a are formed, very big issues that separate them legislatively on a tax package. normally the republican congress would rely on the white house for guidance or the president using the bully pulpit to make the case to the american people, and none of that is happening. earlier, theyt are talking about energy week or made in america week this week. congress is waiting for the
white house to give some input on the tax plan. none of that is visibly happening. some work there is going on behind the scenes with the legislative shop, but that is a missed opportunity, and i think republicans on the hill are frustrated by that. guest: i have for it some republicans, but they would traveling a bit more and getting on the road and talking. he does do really well at rallies. that is one of his strengths. a lot of these members would love to have a photo with the president in front of their constituents. it would serve them well, but he is not a fan of sleeping in a place that is not his own. it is not want to travel. a lot of people are saying get him on the road, get him on the road. host: houston, texas, republican line. hi. caller: hello, i just want to
say when the democrats and the independents and republicans come together and agree that they did not hold obama to the same measurements they tried to hold trump to -- when we think about russia, we think about iran, and we think about multimillion dollars that did not have a signed contract. until he's just fairly -- it is laughable. when you speak about immigration, i am a naturalized citizen. just wantct like we to have all open borders and let every single person in. that is not true. obama led busloads of people come in and gave them all handouts and everything. we appreciate what trump is doing. he is going to organizations and encouraging them to take responsibility for their countries so those people can flourish in their own countries. a lot of people do not want to
come here. a lot of people want to be able to stay in their country. it would be great -- this great america we are in, it would be great if they would do or what have done what trump is doing, just go speak to these people, speak to these politicians. say, you know what, you are responsible for your people. let's do something to help your people stay here. not every single person wants to come to the united states. not every single person wants to be a refugee. there are certain things that we care about, and because they never got addressed with the obama administration because everything seemed to be a handout and they wanted to make everybody happy and nobody cared about open borders -- host: you put a lot out there for our guests. point,that is to our those who support trump release for the president, right? i think the caller really expressed that. there is just a lot of
enthusiasm for the president among those who want to see some different and want to see a change in washington. i think the caller was expressing some of that. host: tara, the idea about the president being judged fairly -- what do you think about that? guest: i take a lot of grief about that. is the president being judged fairly? it is generally our job to be critical of the president, regardless of who is the president. i did not cover obama, but i worked for a newspaper that was critical of him, "the new york post," at the time. it was on the conservative spectrum. i work at the lid a coat, -- politico, which i would say is an unbiased paper. when stories come out about russia and about what is going ifin the administration,
anything for trees the administration and a bad light, it is taken out -- if anything portrays the administration in a bad light, it is taken out or basically said that it is opinion, not fact. am not surprised. republicans were attacking obama during the obama administration, right? democrats attacking trump. weakeri am was filled/ democrats cannot get it together. their arguments are not strong. a lot of the russia stuff is coming from the administration itself. a lot of the news is coming now, and it is not good news. a lot of the things happening are not good things. , as faren that happens as reaction from the white house -- you had a recent experience about that. tell people about that. guest: i was on half of the
foreign trip, and when i was there, we were not really getting access to senior administration officials. the president decided he wanted to leave what was going on at home, the russia investigation, at home, and he did not want to take any questions from the press. in a way, we're there to ask questions. i was speaking with ari fleischer from the bush administration. he said busyh had never -- he on abush had never been trip before and not had one press conference. at the very least, we needed access to senior administration officials, and we were not really getting that at all. so i wrote a story about the fact the president had not done a press conference and that we were not getting access that the administration usually give to a traveling press corps, and the press office took exception to that and asked the white house
correspondent association to put out a statement disproving my story, saying it is not true and they are getting enough access. the white house correspondent association's number one goal is to get more access for us. so they would not going to record with that. they were in a lot of talks with the administration during the entire foreign trip. i do not think they were happy to not have access to the president during that time. there are administration officials on the record. that they think they have the right to ask an independent association to put out a statement, that is wrong. they also filed a complaint to try to get me out of the association. they were really going to places they do not have the right to go to, and they are trying to put us as the opposition. you cannot dispute the fact that the president did not give a
press conference and we do not have access to senior administration officials in the way you would at a typical press trip. host: joann, birmingham, alabama, democrat's line. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: hello. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: in response to the young man from north carolina, the reason states like north asolina, arkansas, alabama, far as them not being worried about what donald trump does in russia is because they are so gerrymandered, the democrats do not even have a voice, just like we do not have a voice. i am saying? and you also see how the cbo was supposed to come out today. the republicans are trying to undermine it so it becomes obsolete and we do not even have
to worry about that, so congress can make of their own plan. they are tying to undermine everything they want us to believe comes from them. they wanted to attack our system so bad. they go alongs, with donald trump, who came into of is attack every institution they can. host: thank you it we also have this tweet -- why would the cbo forecasts suddenly become so so far offter being the mark in the past? guest: the cbo have not been that far off in their projections. economic forecasting modeling is not easy, and they take what they can and put it together. cbo is a nonpartisan agency. they do their work, and the party in charge gets to hire the
cbo director. republicans, when they had the majority, were able to choose. this is their guy in what is a nonpartisan office. so i think this idea of going after cbo is maybe an argument that republicans do not want to go down, and you do see some of them being very concerned about this argument. you're going to need cbo when they do tax reform and a couple months, right? you are going to need cbo on a daily basis. to start attacking the messenger is maybe not the best argument. but, you know, it is interesting, some of the points tara was making about the access. that is a problem in the white house. we have not talked about immigrants, and there is a lot of disarray among democrats. they are holding strong in congress against aca, but out in
the country, there is a big debate going on about which way democrats should go. we saw, sort of, immediately after election, this concern from democrats about really going after president trump when he was first elected, because they were so blindsided by the victory. then he saw democrats, get their sea legs with the women's march and the town hall protests and this big amount of activism coming from the left, really pushing democrats to have a sign and go strong against the president and the administration. i think they are still working out how much to go after him. trumpwhat is the administration's relationship to the cbo, especially if numbers are not flattering to their efforts? guest: they will initially attacked the cbo, saying it is
obamacare, questioning the credibility of the cbo. you see opposition, you attacked the credibility. like lisa said, they are going to need the cbo at some point. we need to see congress be more prudent in some ways, then the white house. to me, that seems like a new trend. guest: it is interesting, right? there is always that tension, even with the party in power. democrats always had concerns with president obama. there was always some friction there. the white house did put out some information last week from, i think, the council of economic advisers on the health care bill. office,s, tom price's will be putting out information on health care. so i think they are trying to muddy the water here. i do think it is a slippery slope for them. cbo has a history of trying to
this sort ofr, nonpartisan voice, of where things will go. there will always be shortcomings, and there are assumptions made in the underlying modeling. there are things like the ted cruz amendment. this would be a very new idea, and some ways, in some ways not, but it would be a new element in the mix. so how do you project with that will do? isst: and mr. mcconnell looking at the cbo a lot right now, so he thinks it is worth considering. sam in thousand oaks, california, independent line. caller: good morning. i have a quick question. reporters, one representing the capital and one representing the white house, so it might be an opportune moment. looking at the debt ceiling, i
know they have raised it, but let's say, hypothetically, they do raise the debt ceiling and that is not an issue -- can congress legally require the white house to borrow? guest: i do not know how to answer that. inherent in raising the debt onling is lifting the cap borrowing to pay already accumulated bills, so i do not exactly know the answer to his question. i feel like that is inherent in what is happening. the government borrows every day to pay the debt. the debt is not new spending. onis sort of like if you go a shopping spree and get a bunch of charges on your credit card, you get your bill at the end of the month and that is what you owe.
or the mortgage on your house, that is what you owe. we talk about heading toward $20 trillion in debt, that is for yesterday, not for going forward. i will have to look into that. guest: i do not know the answer to it either. good question, but -- host: has the white house expressed an interest are not in raising the debt ceiling? hast: secretary mnuchin told congress he would like to see the debt ceiling raised before they leave for the august recess. there is scheduled to leave at the end of july, and the senate has said it will stay for two weeks into august. so that is one of the items on the to-do list in the next couple weeks here. it is always a treacherous vote. nobody likes to have to admit that we need to borrow more. as we have seen in the past, it has led to enormous standoff in congress. at one point in 2011 threatening
the credit worthiness of the united states, the credit rating. that is certainly on the horizon in the next couple weeks here, whether it will come to a showdown. it is an opportunity for either and it exert leverage, is a sort of must-pass piece of legislation, because most lawmakers do not want to see the government involved on its debts. so when there is must-pass legislation, that is prime leverage to attach something or do some sort of dealmaking to get something you want on it. n kentucky,i republican line. caller: yes, i would like to make a few comments. has -- he has mucked things up himself.
there is the russia thing. they never talk about how manafort stepped down or whatever he did, and he was the fall guy for russia. i feel so sorry for those epipenees, like when the went through. those poor senators just sat back in her chair, the congressman, whatever. dore is nothing you can about it. a person who makes $18.9 million a year can afford lawyers. mr. trump can afford his own lawyers. just like the health care and the pharmaceutical companies, 22 million people, if they dropped out of the insurance, the rich are still going to be the ones paying the bulk of the insurance. and the pharmaceutical companies are the same way. they are paying their ceo's and stuff so much money, they brought this on themselves.
they cannot sustain their incomes and the cost of giving american people health insurance. host: thank you. anything? guest: i think the insurance companies, their credibility has taken a real hit with the american people. even when they issued the statement on friday to mitch mcconnell saying that the amendments were unsustainable -- how much clout do you really have? there technically nonprofit, some of them. a lot of people do not have sympathy for them. that is why you are hearing in the house and senate that they want more competition across the insurance companies. interesting that they are being portrayed as big, bad business. guest: doctors, providers, patient advocacy groups, pretty much across the health care industry, have come out opposed to the republican approach to the health care bill, right?
because they are concerned across a host of issues, worried that people will lose coverage. that said, i think the caller expresses this sense among voters, and we saw this throughout the november election, right, of the sort of haves and have-nots, big business and the 1% versus the little guy just trying to pay the bills, and i think that is a theme that has not run its course. we are at a time of great income inequality in this country. you can see it when you travel around this great big country in all the different states. we are in an incredible shift in the economy right now. the economy is going through this enormous turn that some can put on par with the industrial revolution or some other past time where we have had such a churn. so people are really feeling the ramifications of that, and that is expressed over and over by
voters, as we saw in the last election and i think we will see in the coming midterm elections. was just in europe before he moved back to cover the white house, and i covered brexit. it is kind of interesting to see that a lot of the issues we have here in the u.s. in terms of the elites, them versus us, is the same in europe. you saw brexit. unionhought the european were just bureaucrats that were overtaxing them and allowing economic migrants from eastern europe to come take jobs. you see this all over europe, as well, the haves and have-nots. in most european countries, their health care systems are socialized. it is like they figured out the health care system, but there is still a problem there. so it will take a lot more than just health care to bring our country back together.
those countries are pretty sustainable in that way, but it is still this feeling of us versus them. it is more political than even policy. host: omaha, nebraska, independent line. caller: hi, i have some comments. accustome -- as question towards lisa based on her comments about the cbo report. i am one that has lost -- i do not feel like i have any credibility based on how long they were with obamacare, and my question to lisa is, i would like her to detail why i should have confidence in their report on any new health care plan that is proposed. about themment is news media. as a voter, i hear a lot now
personal comments not based necessarily on fact but opinion by news reporters about what is happening in the white house, specifically with trump and congress. iseally do not know how that very helpful, personal opinions, putting those personal opinions out there to the public. i do not see how they are very relevant. i know that usually at the beginning of a personal comment, they, you know, reporters, news media, will let the public know that this may be an opinion or based on sources.
but as they continue to present their ideas, it is almost as if it is fact. host: ok, thank you. we talked about cbo already, so take the second portion of that. guest: yeah, we will go back on cbo later. you know, i think this is always a question, right, and we face it over and over as reporters, whether we're just reporting the facts or whether we are trying to explain what is going on or whether we are verging on opinion. i think it is a constant challenge for reporters to explain -- to show what is happening with the facts and also provide context and explain a little bit. we can explain what congress has and has not done this year, the facts. but we can also put that in some context. what historically has congress
been able to accomplish at this time? what historically has been the relationship between the parties in the white house? some might say you are bearing into opinion, but i would say we are bringing an analysis based what other based on experts out there tell us it's sort of the norm and what is out of norm. that is all in trying to provide a news report everyday in an industry that is incredibly changing. the callers may remember the evening newspapers. those have gone by the wayside. whomorning newspaper -- gets all set in a very fast pace, changing environment, going through a lot of the churn happening elsewhere in the economy. , you see themers day in, day out on the hill come out in the communities. i know we travel to all of the states, knocking on doors,
sitting with people at their kitchen tables, going to grocery store parking lots, places where we can find normal people going about their lives and asking them what they feel. that all informs our report. i will say, we are trying to do the best we can. guest: at times when you hear a reporter say my sources tell me, or officials say this or that, and then whatever they say that comes after that, sometimes it can be placed on the reporter as if it is their opinion or ideas. we are showing both sides, and that is what we need to be diligent about doing. while some are saying this, others are saying that. especially with this administration, we have been characterized as the opposition. we have to be super careful. i feel like i'm constantly try to go out of my way to get context in the sense that you may be critical about trump for
this. in the obama administration, they did this. almost everyone of my stories the context for what other administrations have done, so that this is not coming out of nowhere. there are probably a lot of attacks on trumped in the congress, around town, because he is so different, unconventional. does that necessarily mean a bad thing? no, but we have to show the viewers and the readers how it is different, and then you decide. host: announcer: c-span's washington journal live everyday would use and policy issues that impact the. look at theing, a efforts to pass the budget. and member of the house budget texastee, followed by
congressman jodey arrington. later, an author on his book "dreamland -- the true tale of america's opioid epidemic." be sure to watch washington journal at 7:00 eastern on tuesday morning. joined a discussion. announcer: tuesday the senate foreign relations committee takes up the nomination of calista gingrich to be ambassador to the vatican. she is the wife of newt gingrich. see our live coverage at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. wednesday, the house budget committee marks up the house republican legit blueprint for fiscal year 2018. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. announcer: this sunday at noon eastern, a c-span3 special event. as american history tv is live -- marking the 50th
anniversary of the 1967 detroit riot. we talked to a former detroit police chief and a pulitzer prize-winning historian to talk about what happened and why. pressthe detroit free editor and former detroit free press news journalist discussed the immediate coverage of the riots and the aftermath. of the 1967 detroit riots 50 sundayater, live beginning at new eastern on american history tv on c-span3. senator tom cotton spoke on an event on russia's military strategy in europe. the event is 50 minutes.