tv Washington Journal 03302019 CSPAN March 30, 2019 7:00am-10:01am EDT
americans' justin government. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ surprise medical bills -- those often generated by ambulance transport have gotten the attention of congress. "elcome to "washington journal for the saturday, march 30. we are asking you about the impact of those medical bills on your life. if you get your insurance through the affordable care act or obamacare, 202-748-8000.
those of you who get employer insurance, 202-748-8001. if you are on medicare or medicaid, 202-748-8002. if you are uninsured, 202-748-8003. we welcome your comments on our facebook page and also on twitter. we will also take a look at the headlines, and the stories in the news this morning. some early reaction on facebook. "exactly what does that mean? unreasonable and unexpected fees? they ought to humble themselves and go back to their original creed -- first, do no harm, even financially." not the one to take the
butit out of health care, there are many places i could support legislation." comments. your sarah reports on health care issues for vox.com. surprise medical bills get a whole lot more attention in the media, she writes. congress seems to be getting serious about cracking down on the process. the hearing is meant to explore the scope of the problem, what types of policy solutions would be best to fix it. she writes --
one of the policy shops in washington looking into the issue, the brookings institution. we covered an event this week where they talked about this issue. part of it laid out the scope of the problem. [video clip] these and a lot about there's a lot of great stories on the individual examples here. it's worth looking at, right? this is a somewhat common phenomenon. it's not just a few wild anecdotes. one in five emergency department visits result in a potential for a surprise out-of-network bill. in network an hospital but one of the doctors who treated you was out-of-network. the one in 10 times you do that
, you are seendure by an out-of-network radiologist, anesthesiologist, whatever. set,a large insurance data half of ambulance rides were out-of-network. of air ambulance rides were out-of-network. it's hard to fathom how there could be a market for these pretty rare events. host: we will show you a bit more throughout the hour. brookings ischart talking about this week, the bulk of them come under ambulance services, 51%. 19% through emergency department use and elective inpatient care. 9% surprise or unexpected bills.
202-748-8000 for those of you on the affordable care act. 202-748-8001 if you get employers' insurance. 202-748-8002 for those of you on medicare and medicaid. for the uninsured, that line is 202-748-8003. brian is in geneva, new york. gets his insurance through his employer. go ahead. caller: that is geneva, illinois. host: my mistake. go ahead, brian. caller: thank you. first thing with the medical problem in this country -- what people have to realize is artificial intelligence will probably help a lot in the future. people need to realize that they need to -- everybody has to pay something. it'syou look at insurance, really the best approach to make and everyone is covered
everyone pays something. it's what the heritage foundation came up with back in the 1980's. solution ands the it seemed to be fair. the republicans -- i am a republican -- have really taken the trump approach, which i think is racist based, it itually makes sense, statistically covers everybody, the romneycare and obamacare, and trump comes in ruins the whole thing. i wish the politicians would stop telling people it's not going to cost anything. it should cost something. host: you get your insurance through your employer. have you ever been shocked by the charges that you weren't
expecting on medical coverage? , when it was something severe. i had an operation, i had to pay something of it. i had the means to do that. i think about as people get older, it becomes a problem. i'm 52 years old, but i'm reaching a point where i might not have a job. i've been covered my entire life since 1956. the system has benefited from me because i've been pretty healthy. it's goingiabetic, to get expensive and complicated. we need to have a combination of private insurance and medicare. host: thank you for sharing your story.
madison, it's ruth. she gets her insurance on the affordable care act. caller: i certainly do depend on that heavily. old, i'm 87 years seeing a great deal of the medical bills i received -- there are substantial ones -- that have other charges beyond what it is that my insurance pays. in particular is my transportation because i've used emergency transportation services since i live alone. $265 for a trip that is about 14 blocks away. to me, that seems to be excessive, especially since a lot of our state dollars and
county dollars are paying towards what i'm receiving. i worked until i was 72 years old. it's not like i was just living on my income. from the government. 72, i went into retirement. the problem is i'm receiving so many bills that i will be facing bankruptcy pretty soon if i don't get some kind of assistance. host: how much time per day do you spend contesting or paying your medical bills? caller: every day. host: a portion of every day? caller: at least two hours, possibly more, either on the phone or with other things trying to separate things, trying to read all this stuff. it is extensive.
you aren't just reading one page. host: thank you for calling in this morning. nbc reporting about this, talking about the scope of the medical bill issue. several health policy experts agreed that all parties share blame in the system. doctors can charge higher prices for out-of-network care if they don't accept insurance. insurance companies might negotiate service rates that are not competitive enough for doctors or hospitals to conduct their business. doctors tolead charge patients those out-of-network rates. hospitals are on the hook as well. they often contract out-of-network providers. surpriseking you about or unexpected medical bills and how it's affected your life. bill in rogers, arkansas.
good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. you are on the air. caller: i have a diverse perspective. my first wife benefited from becausele health care our family health care got -- ited the first time went from $400 a month to $2600 a month. we couldn't do it. of mixed emotions -- she got cancer a second time. a $190,000 cancer bill. affordable care act behold, sheo and
got cancer a third time and we were covered then and it was much more affordable because we paid our caps and all of that. recipient, i get insurance for the first time -- it's $1000 deductible. my younger wife has aca. her deductible is $6,400. foraffordable health care those who are middle-class, it's mostly a catastrophic insurance. it doesn't encourage you to go to the doctor when you have pharmaceutical coverage and a $6,400 deductible. it discourages you from getting health care. said the total bill
was $190,000? caller: yes. in the trauma she went through. withospital was connected a certain pharmaceutical company thatwanted to use chemo was three cocktails and one shot -- in one shot that was much more expensive. we didn't know there was an alternative. chemo in thethe chair she was sitting in and took her to a financial office and said you don't make enough money. we do have an alternative. foras just traumatic someone who has to deal with this anyway to then be taken aside and say we do have
affordable chemo. host: appreciate you sharing your experiences. we are asking you about your experience with surprise or unexpected medical bills, likely the subject of a congressional hearing this week and the discussion this week at the brookings institution. they looked at their own studies on where and why it's happening. [video clip] >> the more common case that gets talked about here, most people are choosing in network emergency departments, but then the emergency physicians who work there or the doctors who are on call, they are out-of-network. they are negotiating independently from the hospital. are not incy doctors those same networks. this canexample here,
even happen with elective care. i'm getting a hip replacement surgery, i called ahead to make the hospital is in network and the surgeon is a network, but after the fact, the anesthesiologist or radiologist hits me with a surprise bill. it's impossible to imagine people actually choosing their anesthesiologist before hand. i've tried before. it took me eight calls. i was given a 90% sure answer. if you are48-8000 using the affordable care act. 202-748-8001 for those of you who get your employer insurance. 202-748-8002 if you are on medicare or medicaid. uninsured, 202-748-8003.
back to your calls and comments in just a moment. the president in the headlines this morning about immigration, the southern border. this is from "the wall street journal." trump threatens to shut down the southern border." while touring lake okeechobee on friday, president trump called on mexico friday to prevent asylum-seekers from reaching the border. the homeland security secretary said her agency expected as many as 100,000 families to be taken into custody this month.
on twitter, some news from bloomberg. the u.s. midwest is struggling trappedmp roads, people in homes and water supplies cut off due to flooding. a community in new york has banned unvaccinated children -- how muchn public that box of tissues costs. mark tweets -- this one says -- margaret in new york. good morning. caller: good morning.
thank you for taking my call. this is a fabulous program. i watch every morning. i'm 86 years old. and anmedicare additional plan for $50 a month. no one ever mentions this. the insurance company i have, the guy who is the head of it made $44 million last year. us. is what is costing i have no complaints with my coverage. thank you for taking my call. host: keith in michigan. getting his insurance through his employer. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. until we admit in america that health care is nothing but theft are talking about another
avenue we are stolen from on a daily basis. basis, wen a daily paid $3 trillion a year for $1 trillion worth of health care. until it is nationalized and regulated, we have the worst health care in the world. it is a mafioso, government run organization. aw, we are just talking about different avenue of how we are being stolen from. my daughter spent a year in new zealand. they took her to the hospital one day. i never saw a bill. it is paid for. no additional insurance through a private carrier, no arguments about how much is paid. we are just getting stolen from. a great part of america's wealth is drained through the coffers of the hospitals and the
pharmacies and probably our politicians. host: would you support a system like new zealand's, a government run, taxpayer-funded health care plan? caller: absolutely. nobody there loses their health because they get sick. nobody has to give up going grocery shopping or putting gas in the car or even having a car because they have a $190,000 bill. that is just outrageous. host: philadelphia, myron is covered by medicare-medicaid. make sure you mute your television and then go ahead with your comment. myron in philadelphia, you are on the air. myron, mute your television. there you go. caller: my comment is i'm on
medicare and medicaid, i will be 73 in a couple of weeks, i've been very sick. i've had congestive heart failure three times already. if president trump cuts medicare and medicaid, i will die. i'm on a disability. there's no way i could afford it. i'm sure i'm not the only person -- i'm sure there's millions and millions of people like me. i'm very much against what he wants to do. it is disgraceful that he's going to kill millions of people. host: let's read to some of the reporting from the hill. the headline says "cuts to medicare and medicaid will cause overall health care costs to rise." they write --
the proposal unveiled in the 2020 budget was a shocker that surprised no one. this is from the hill, an opinion piece at thehill.com. charles is uninsured. have you been hit with large health care bills? caller: i'm fortunate to say that my complaint is more so hospital,you go to a you get a bill from the hospital like you go to the emergency room and then you get all these -- all five dollar fees these small five dollar fees,
you get little small bills, you don't know where they came from, like related services. i will speak to the issue of insurance period. the gentleman who called and said it's like a mafia run outfit, it's true. everywhere you look, americans are getting larger and larger. we are not supposed to fat shame. is supposed to tell these people that everyone is overweight and not eating right? to not we allow doctors treat people when they are supposedly going around doing charity work? how can we allow that? the government paid for them to go to school. but, when they get their
offices, they can deny certain people. the truth is never debated. we can raise liquor taxes and vice taxes on everything and pay for it. what happened to the insurance money from cigarettes? that should be enough money to pay for health costs. what are the states doing with that money? host: indianapolis up next. employer.red by her caller: i have employer insurance and medicare. i'm a retired federal employee. you keep your insurance. 2019, my medicare will be primary and my employer insurance will be secondary. the lady said she paid $200 for an ambulance. my fee was $7,000.
i'm being overcharged and i paying a lot in insurance, i paid through the government, $400 a month, and then i have to pay extra for medicare because i security,der social so i pay $500 a year for medicare. year?for the entire -- i get aht now little medicare, $92 a month, which they take. after they take the $92 a month, i have to pay what's left over. host: do you find yourself with your two plans falling short and not being able to cover procedures you need to have done? caller: i just had a kidney transplant.
i'm not sure exactly how much that was charged to me. it waswas on dialysis, out of pocket $1600 a month even with the two insurances. when they see i'm a retired government employee, i think they charge me more. they know i have good insurance. i think i get charged more than the average person. host: but you had to wind up picking up some of that cost, right? caller: yes. and then i had to pay for my medicare. it's about $600 a month. host: part of the reason we are talking about this this morning is the likelihood of a congressional hearing next week. our coverage 10 days ago of an event at the brookings institution, one of several
looking at surprise medical bills and the impact on u.s. citizens. here's how to join the conversation. 202-748-8000 if you are on the affordable care act. 202-748-8001 if you get employer insurance. if you are on medicare or medicaid, 202-748-8002. if you are uninsured, 202-748-8003. in the newsare back thatthe president saying case in texas calling for all of obama care to be declared unconstitutional. headline from "the washington "gop" this morning -- scrambles to deal with president trump's decision on health care."
"the fight isg just beginning. we will protect people with pre-existing conditions for for care and prescription drugs even further ." let's hear from you. miami, florida. she's on medicare and medicaid. good morning, dalia. caller: good morning. i'm on medicare but i'm also a retired federal employee. out, mye aca came insurance is 80% more. we pay $700 a month. many people talk about the insurance they want to give this country that is paid by the government. free areo think it is
sadly mistaken. i have family in spain. we have gone through that. there is a consumption tax. anyone who buys anything from food tissues to whatever -- food , you pay a whatever consumption tax that we don't see anywhere. we have a friend whose father operation.ladder he had the surgery in october the following year. membercase, our family was told in february that he has melanoma. his surgery was in late june. by the time he did it, a few months later, it came back.
you don't get to pick your doctor. you don't know who's going to do your surgery. you are called the day before .nd told be here by 6:00 if people think it's going to be so great, just try it. it's horrible. reviewhe national headline "surprise medical bills ."ined national attention one of those participating in the discussion, jane buyer. here's what she had to say. [video clip] >> certainly, it would be beneficial to the consumer to have insurance where they want have an out-of-network anerience -- won't have
out-of-network experience. there is also a question of could there be some sort of cost shifting. we need to think about that. host: let's hear from nancy in pennsylvania. good morning. she's on our line for those getting medicare and medicaid. caller: good morning. the i'm interested in, that ourt went around social security and medicare was tampered with. we had a lot of money in there. office, when he came in he made a statement and said somebody should put a lock on this lockbox. that was our social security and medicare. even before that, they were tampering and getting in there.
somebody high up in office to look into this so we can get reimbursed. we will be having this discussion. everybody is losing out. that's why our president is doing what he is doing. he is trying to reestablish the social security and medicare. i give up. for myself, i just make payments. whatever i can afford, when i have to go to the doctor, i just pay five dollars or $10 because that's all i can afford. host: do you need additional insurance in addition to medicare? upmc.: i have medication --al
when i go into the hospital and so forth, but still, i pay for everything and i can't afford it. host: roman in philadelphia. good morning. caller: good morning america. i have a different slant on things from my experience. i went to the doctor's office a couple weeks ago. part of it had to do with them injections, one for pneumonia and a flu shot. the technician prepared both less thand within three minutes, those injections were given. eachi received the bill, injection over that three minute cost $60.
the problem i'm looking at is how things are being billed and the method. three minutes for $120? think part of it has to do with the medicine you are getting? caller: absolutely not. these are separate bills. the medicine itself is a different bill. host: so, they charge you for the injection itself? caller: for the injection itself, yes. and it's horrible. i spoke to the doctor a few days later. i said to him, this is outrageous. know. goes, i what can you do? host: he has no control over
that. that's what the insurance company is telling him to do? caller: is it the insurance company or does it have to do with how the billing method is handled? host: thanks for that, roman. we will be in nearby westchester, pennsylvania. annette, go ahead. caller: i worked for the same company for eight years. what my company did, they cut down of a lot of employees under the threshold. according to the affordable care act, they wouldn't have to offer insurance. i was one of them. unfortunately, at the time, i was pregnant. in the middle of my pregnancy, i lost my insurance. the problem with the insurance
under the affordable care act, they had $7,000 to $12,000 deductibles on them. pregnancy, i would have to put out that kind of money and have a high premium every month, $400 every month. or, my company allowed me to pay cobra all through my pregnancy. host: how much is that per month? caller: $565 a month. host: did that cover the test and things he needed for your pregnancy -- you needed for your pregnancy? caller: the cobra was a little better because i already satisfied the deductible. i'm working for the same company eight years. these companies are using the affordable care act not to give
employees insurance. if they keep them under a certain amount of hours, they don't have to give insurance. that's what's happening out here. host: other news this morning, the latest on brexit, the plan europeantheir opinion union -- growing push for a softer exit. may's brexit plan suffered a third house of commons defeat. the british could be pushed to change tactics toward a softer form of brexit. they will vote next week on whether to unite around a new policy. downing street officials said
affordable care act -- i don't understand why you have a line for medicaid and the affordable care act. the affordable care act was just an expansion of medicaid. 10 million people didn't have insurance. he just threw us all into a whirlwind and my premiums skyrocketed, they nearly tripled. this is such a ridiculous thing to do. whenever you subsidize something, you increase the costs of whatever you are subsidizing. the medicare people, you have to 65,rstand, when you get to they will start collecting -- you only paid 1.45% every time you made a dollar. ent per dollar.
you made $1 million throughout your lifetime, that's one emergency room visit. did you really pay the true cost, the true premium? theget hit with that, government takes $120 if you decide to go with medicare b. that's only after you turn 65. you are not paying into the system. there is no social security lockbox. social security is invested into government that. u.s.vernment debt, government bonds. c-span,le that call they are not very educated. with the internet, you have access to look at any of these things. host: go back to your original
point. you get your insurance through your employer. your rates have gone up. you've noticed them go up considerably since the implementation of the affordable care act? caller: exactly, because i'm subsidizing the affordable care act just like everyone else with private insurance. i'm subsidizing for people to go on medicaid. i wish c-span would do a program on the true essence of obamacare. it was just a huge expansion of medicaid. plans who do have these can use them because they are catastrophic plans -- can't use them because they are catastrophic plans. they are impractical. host: we have a line for the uninsured as well, 202-748-8003.
go ahead.a, ian, had insurancen't since 2009. doctor --been to the i have reasonable health. i'm tired ofng is paying the $827 fine for not having insurance. how much longer is that going to go on? host: how much is the fine each year for you? caller: $827. that should be my personal choice. justuldn't get fined because i don't want to buy something. i've only been to the doctor once in the last six years. that's all i needed.
why should i be forced to pay something i don't want and don't need? host: how old of a guy are you? caller: i'm 55. host: and you've been uninsured for how long? theer: since 2008 when unaffordable health care act tripled the rate of my insurance. host: let's hear from laurel in lakewood, washington. caller: hello. i wanted to comment on a couple of points i've heard this morning. the affordable care act varies from state to state depending on what that state wants to do. in washington state, we have a community plan. -- i heards us to one man say he went into the doctor's office for his flu shot
. the problem with that is you are paying to rent that doctor's room, you are paying for that space. andan go into the drugstore i get my flu shot and pneumonia shot for free every year. we also have community urgent , which is a whole lot cheaper than emergency rooms and it's cheaper than going to the doctor because it is a pared down system. you don't have to pay for the whole slew of things you can get at a doctor's office if all you need is a checkup to see if you have an ear infection. host: you have this washington state plan in addition to the affordable care act? caller: that is our affordable care act.
that's what washington state set up. host: thank you for calling in this morning. other news from "the atlanta journal-constitution." antiabortion heartbeat bill hits the governor's desk." they write -- people in the house gallery could be heard yelling "shame" shortly after the bill passed. read more about that at ajc.com. came out late yesterday about the affordable care act, this is an "associated
press" piece. john bates wrote in his opinion late thursday that so-called association health plans were .un around consumer protections key parts of the trump administration's policy are unlawful and must be set aside because they go against established definitions of what constitutes an employer. that's from the ap. diane inalls, we go to massachusetts. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to tell you a story about my husband. we were going out every day, he
loved to eat, we would go to restaurants, he had a problem with his eye, the doctor fixed , they sent him to a kidney kidney doctor put him on 30 pills a day. within a month, this man couldn't eat, he couldn't walk. he had every sign they talk about on the commercials with drugs. he had rashes all over. he ended up in the hospital. he had ad every day panel of five of the top doctors in the country, they couldn't figure out what was wrong with him, i told them it was the
pills, this went on for months and he died. when i got the death certificate, he died of sepsis. they did noy sent, operations, all they did was testing on this man for a month washe hospital and the bill $340,000. 64, he wasnt, he was still on his employer's insurance and they paid for everything, so i was lucky. and i'm notmedicare feeling well and i'm terrified to go to the doctor because i won't go into bankruptcy and lose my home. it's the only thing i have left. if they aren't going to pay the bill -- that is outrageous.
testing on a for man for a month? host: very sorry to hear that. we do appreciate you calling and. does calling in -- appreciate you calling in. -- innd nebraska nebraska. chuck in nebraska. good morning. caller: i'm one of the very lucky ones. i've had government health care my entire life. my dad was in the army for 20 years. service and came out a disabled vet. my v.a. has taken care of care since 1984. people saying they don't want to subsidize other people's health -- one guyt kind of
was saying he doesn't want to have to pay insurance. what about car insurance? they made car insurance mandatory. me.ust baffles why we don't go to universal care just baffles me. all the other countries do it for a lot less money than we pay and have better outcomes than we do. think wewhy they don't are smart enough to do universal health care in this country. host: you've talked about being on a government health plan as a veteran, now on v.a. insurance. does that cover everything you need? caller: i have an appointment on physical.r my annual
they found out i had spots on my kidney year ago. -- a year ago. they found out it was malignant cancer. they did an operation and save my life. it didn't cost me anything. o'rourke to officially launch presidential campaign on monday tour of texas." track to southern texas university in houston and wrap up in austin in front of the state capital. coverage of beto o'rourke today on c-span and on c-span radio from el paso,
texas. lynn in eastpoint, michigan. she gets her insurance through her employer. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. thest wanted to thank previous gentlemen for his service. i know it's difficult and i'm really thankful that he has the v.a. to support him. insurance from my husband's work. like other previous c allers, we are fortunate that we do get to have that. a lot of people say that they have lost their insurance because their employers cut their work hours down to part-time. i don't see how that's an insurance because. oft is an employer's lack
moral substance. it doesn't seem fair to blame our government for trying to provide for the country and then allowing corporations and employers to scapegoat by cutting people's hours so that they don't have to provide what the law has guaranteed to people of our country. isryone getting insurance extremely important. the health care costs have risen so high, how can you make a choice over food on your table, a roof over your head or going to the doctor? people need to consider who the bad guys are, the insurance corporations who charge their clients so much for the basic health care needs and
warren, michigan. roger, hello. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: good morning, america. i'm on medicaid at this point in my life. i have been for a number of years now because of an injury to my back. i'm going toay take the chances of never walking again. thanld rather walk in pain never walk at all. my fellow americans, you are your own best doctor. calledw how your machine the human body is feeling. you don't have to take all these things. i have a prostate problem now. i have tried several medications. i can't handle the side effects.
i talked to my doctor. we are our own best. i'm about to turn 65. i'm going to be switched over to medicare. if ilose my medications, didn't have this -- this is an answer to my prayers, he granted me this. don't say this is the government. this because i truly needed it. times" talksw york about the administration efforts to end obamacare. sanders says no to incrementalism, highlighting a divide among democrats.
democrats were quick to express their support. ocasio-cortez, the often uncompromising freshman, but not bernie sanders. one more call. let's hear from brenda in kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a comment about health care. they never get to the point of what's causing these high prices in health care. they have privatized it. these hospitals all belong to the american people. the doctors work independently. now, they work for some private
hear politicians talk about that. and as far as nancy pelosi goes, i think she should be investigated. host: that is brenda in kentucky. so much, and more of your calls and comments coming up as we continue on the "washington journal." coming up next, we will take a look at the education department's proposed budget exchange ofrall policy with alyson klein of education week. later, we will beat with carol jenkins about efforts to ratify the equal rights amendment. more "washington journal" ahead. ♪ >> this weekend on american
history tv, world war ii navajo back atkers and a look the 1970 93-mile nuclear island power accident. today at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the first interview with the navajo code talkers who served in the marine corps and use their native language to secretly communicate operational plans. >> it took us, the navajo code talkers, compelled to use the language, and they devised it, and they seemed it in such a way of, a veryyed a role unique role of confusing the enemy. >> and then live sunday morning at 8:30 eastern on american history tv and c-span's "washington journal," the 40th anniversary of the powermile island nuclear
accident. historian and author samuel edmund lyman. and at 4:00 p.m. on "reel america," watch the cbs report "fallout from three-mile island." is an evacuation. please stay indoors with your windows closed. >> for almost a week last month, the people of middletown, pennsylvania, lived in fear of an enemy they could not see, hear, or feel. onwatch this weekend american history tv on c-span3. >> the c-span bus is stopping at the schools of our studentcam winners, recently in south carolina to award to gabrielle, darius, and
various richmond. we saw the topic, we immediately thought about the constitution, and of course the first thing that came to mind was the bill of rights, especially freedom of speech, because that is something that is so ingrained in the american identity and is something that is a topic that has been at the forefront, especially the past few years in terms of the press, so how could we not approach this subject and what it means to be an american? >> see the top 20 winning ts on c-span, and you can watch the entire thing online at studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. by educationjoined week assistant editor alyson klein, who was also the co-author of "the politics case," a blog at education week. talk to us about the budget that
have been proposed at the trump administration. tell us about the number, where that relates to the previous year, and where the ants totration w focus dollars this coming year or the 2020 fiscal year, i should take. guest: sure, they are proposing a 10% cut to the u.s. department of education, about seven one $1 billion, and it would eliminate 29 programs, including programs programs andol future quality. it does seek new investments in school choice, which is a big goal of secretary of education betsy devos and president trump. host: you mentioned charter schools. how much additional money does the of administration want to put into that effort? million, which would put the programs of $500 million. i should a year after year, it has been bipartisan work for increasing funding for charter schools. morebecome a little
popular in some spots because they have been closely identified with secretary devos, who is really controversial, especially among teachers, principals, educators. host: she had at least two meetings on capitol hill this week. a couple that c-span covered. we will get to the special olympics issue in a minute. what are some of the main issues that she heard from from lawmakers? guest: sure. there were was a lot of pushbak to the proposals that she proposed, and it is the third year in a row that the administration tried to cut funding for afterschool programs . they tried to cut a big, flexible grant that school districts can use for everything from arts education, college and career readiness, cuts to teacher, and congress has rejected those cuts. in fact, they have continued to increase the department of education's budget.
host: i mentioned that secretary devos testified at a couple of hearings. let's take a look at one she had this week. here she is. [video clip] sec. devos: the president's by sevenuld defined point $1 billion, a decrease from the 2019 appropriated level. year's similar to last request and the year before that as well. i acknowledge that you rejected those recommendations are it i also acknowledge that it is easier to keep spending, to keep saying yes, and to keep saddling tomorrow's generation with today's growing debt, but as has been said, the government will run out of other people's money. over the past 40 years, federal taxpayer spending on education has increased about 180%, amounting to over $1.2 trillion cumulatively. and yet we are still 24th in
reading, 25th in science, and 40th in math when compared to the rest of the world. doing the same things, and more of it, will not bring about the results. i propose a different approach -- freedom. this budget focuses on freedom for teachers, freedom for parents, freedom for all students. the:, alyson klein, secretary said there, talking to lawmakers saying basically in terms of last year's proposals, she said "you rejected those keeping inions," mind the proposal from the white house is just that, a recommendation of how they would like to spend it. how did capitol hill, how to congress propose that the education department spend their dollars, and where do you think members, now that we have a house donated by majority democrats, how do they want to spend those dollars this year?
guest: i can imagine democrats would want to see investments in school infrastructure, though that is not necessarily the department of education's budget. it is basically fixing up crumbling schools. they want to invest in teachers. there has been a lot of talk about low teacher salaries. we have seen big protests, including an really red states, like oklahoma and arizona. would expect that these cuts, even when congress was controlled by republicans, i really expect this will be rejected again. host: teacher salaries, those are obviously state issues. that is having some resonance on capitol hill? having somenk it is resonance on capitol hill, and in the democratic party, we saw senator harris introduced a proposal to raise teacher salaries. i think it will continue to gain steam. host: our guest is alyson klein, assistant editor of "education week," and joining us to talk about education policies to the education budget. (202) 748-8000 is the number to
call for teachers and administrators. if you are a teacher or administrator, that is your line. (202) 748-8001 for parents. and for all others, that is (202) 748-8002. we had a caller standing by, so we will wait for your calls to come in. educations as secretary on capitol hill, as we mentioned, a couple of times this week. this proposal. what in general has been her reception among members? has had a lothe of trouble with democratic members, especially since her early confirmation hearing, which was really rocky. she has become kind of a social media sensation. when republicans actually control the house of representatives, the house education committee i believe only had her up once. she has been on capitol hill less often than her predecessors at this point. i think that is going to change
now that democrats controlled the house. i think they will have her up quite a bit. a big law covering k-12 schools and more. host: your focus is k-12 education. we saw this headline at "usa today," friday's edition, "disputed system is pushed to the test," and they write that rapidly,arters spread the pace of growth is slowing. politicians call for more regulation to the schools, which used taxpayer money but have five and operators. the political winds have shifted as well, killing the kind of bipartisan agreement that allows charters to blossom. what has been your experience, your reporting or research on where charters stands today? have been highly controversial, although they did enjoy some bipartisan support,
as you mentioned, during the , partiallyistration because secretary devos has been such a big fan of charters, there has been a question whether they are siphoning off dollars from schools. this is an issue that potentially could become part of the conversation of the democratic primary. a lot of teachers are concerned about thei impact on their districts. host: we go to paul, who is in new york city. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have seen a database at "education week," that you use, which is very useful. some sorto indicate of remarkable things. one is that the spending per pupil, like in a city like new rk, new jersey, it is higher in some of the more well-to-do suburbs around it. some need to know that the
resources that you see in the classroom is actually a lot less, and i was just wondering if you could address why spending per pupil does not seem to be providing the same, you know, why it does not actually lead to resources in the classroom, necessarily. and also, just when you look at k-12 spending in the u.s. compared to other spending, we see lower spending in other pertries per pupil, student, and yet higher test results, higher educational achievement. i am wondering why that does not seem to be addressed very much. and also, this term investing, which i heard you use earlier. investing,ending, that is like you are suggesting oh, we are investing in something. what about the return on investment? why is the return on investment in the united states so much lower than it is another area? that is my question. host: thanks, paul. guest: i think that is a great
question and something that policymakers have been wrestling with for quite a while. why did we spend so much money and have been in the middle of the pack when it comes to these international comparisons? i don't have a great answer, because right now, policymakers do not have a great answer. when you look at school districts' budgets, there is a lot of money that, you know, the public may not necessarily think about coaching of teachers. one thing the u.s. does is we educate special populations, including english language learners and students in special education, and those kids are important to educate, many advocates feel, but they can be very expensive to educate, so that could be where ultimately it is going. host: rob joins us from springfield, oregon. hi there. caller: good morning. i love your program. when president trump put together his cabinet, i was thrilled to see betsy devos.
they need more people like her. primarily the recently so much trouble with health care and the result of education in our country is we exclude competition. we need to have more competition in all of these arenas, and it will drive down the costs and bring a better result. i appreciate it. thanks. have a great day. that,is there evidence of in terms of competition, charter schools and nonpublic schools? guest: research on that have been really mixed. in some places, charter schools have helped improve student achievement. in other places, it is hard to tell. host: here is dan in chesapeake bay, maryland, also a parent. good morning, dan. are your kids currently in school? guest: i have three kids letter starting kindergarten this year. host: great. go ahead with your comment. have a question about what betsy devos said about budget cuts, providing more
freedom to students. i hear that from republicans a lot. what freedom is she talking about in place of kids needing those services? guest: i think that is a great question. secretary devos' main proposal for expanding educational choice would be to offer what is called a federal tax credit scholarship. in place inady about 18 states, and the way it would work of individuals and corporations could donate money, what is called a scholarship granting organization, and then these organizations could offer vouchers for the private schools , and they could use them for early childhood education, afterschool programs, to help students in high school take college credit. that is something she is pushing really hard on. it has been introduced in the senate as a bill by ted cruz. it has also been introduced in the house. that bill faces really long odds
in the current political climate, because democrats are in control of the house. that is a proposal that we may see resurface again. host: the issue of special olympics got credit into this, finding a special olympics. first of all, why is that in the education budget? sure, i do not know for but my speculation is senator beendy may have instrumental there. it was started by maria shriver, a kennedy family program. that is late senator kennedy, so he is not the one still isocating for it, but there still a lot of bipartisan support on capitol hill for the special olympics. it is important to know that the federal funding is not the entire funding of the special olympics. it is only about 10%, about $18 million, about $150 million for the special olympics total. host: so the start of the proposal was to eliminate that piece of federal funding. guest: right. and that probably was never
going to happen. talkeds that i already about, things like afterschool funding and teacher quality, those did not make it to prime time the last two years. it is really unlikely that this would have, either. host: i want to show you some of the headwinds she ran into in the senate education committee. this is senator dick durbin questioning betsy devos. let's have a look. [video clip] there have been some press reports related to your testimony and the special olympics, and i hope to get that clarified here. did you personally approve the illumination of the $18 million from your budget to help the special olympics? sec. devos: senator, as you within budget process wa the administration is a collaborative one, and it is my responsibility to present the budget here on behalf of the administration, the president's budget. as i said then, and i will say again, we had to make tough decisions around the budget priority, and we elected to hold
.e.a. funding.d and funding for english language learners, knowing that will reach the greatest number of students. sen. durbin: did you personally approve -- i think a yes or no will do -- the $18 million of the cut for funding for special olympics? sec. devos: no, i did not personally -- sen. durbin: whoever came up with that idea should get the special olympic gold-medal francifor insensitivity. that is senator dick durbin. here is how president trump reacted to the proposal. [video clip] the special olympics will be funded. i just told my people i want to fund the special olympics, and i just authorized a finding of the special olympics.
i think it is incredible, and i just authorized a funding. morning.bout it this i have overridden my people. we are funding the special olympics. host: alyson klein, the president saying he is overriding his people, secretary of education betsy devos. remind us of the proposed effort for special olympics. guest: so it is $18 million, again, which is only about 10% of the total for special olympics. secretary devos has donated to the special olympics herself. this has been in the president's budget for the past three years. the last two years, congress has rejected it. they of course rejected it again. there really was never any real threat to the special olympics funding, but it really just became a social media sensation and firestorm, and the secretary faced a ton of opposition, much of it for a personal. host: our guest is alyson klein.
we are talking about education policy in the proposed budget and budget cuts. we will hear from tom next in kentucky. good morning, tom. caller: hi. good morning. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: ok. i live in a rural district in southern kentucky, where we have andly low a.c.t. schools low graduation rates. i have had three children go through the school system. it amazes me that secretary that commented earlier were ok with it, that no one has thenic to change, because knowledge -- there is no critical thinking skills, i mean, there is no system in place for children to learn how
to critically think. that just amazes me. people should be anxious for particularly for something like this, because it is in a really bad state. the state of education, at least in my education, is in a really bad state right now. that is the only comment i have. host: thank you, tom. guest: that is a point i hear often. what is interesting as many people feel like the national education system is really broken and has a lot of difficulties, but they like their own school systems, so it is interesting to hear that the caller has been concerns about his own local school system. host: secretary devos did talk about the international ranking of where students, high school students stand in terms of math skills, language skills, etc. as you look at k-12 education, is our standing getting better or worse internationally?
it seems toneral, be treading water, and that is something that secretary devos springs up time and again in hearings like the ones she was in this week. she said basically everything in the same place or even beginning to slip at times, why -- you know, what can we do differently? i think the answer from democrats would be that we need to invest more or give more funding to education, and i think her answer is more educational choice. host: to our parents line, we hear from allison next in norwalk, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: great. thank you for taking my call. everyone is talking about the special olympics, and i want to point out that there is a college in rochester, new york, and it is called the national
technical institute for the deaf. it was founded by congress in 1965, and this congress has been federally funded. been slipped under the rug, because everyone is talking about the special olympics. we need to bring awareness to this as well, and that is the purpose of my call. people with disabilities need assistance to become productive, independent, and contributing members of society. i know it is just a proposal, however, but if it passes by reducing the funding to ntid, many of these deaf students will not be able to reach the education that they need to reach their full potential. int: others that they affect the proposed 2020 budget, disabled students? yes, that is the department of health and human services, and there are cuts to
programs for the deaf and the blind. again, many of these cuts have already been rejected by congress. be again, inl may particular, because democrats control the house. host: just a reminder, this is the proposed 2020 budget from the white house. "education week" posting some of those education cuts. 2019,ed elimination for the 2019 request. this is compared to the 2019 fiscal year request. let's go to ocala, florida. tony is on our others line. tony, go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. great topic. something unusual happened yesterday. i was at the department of motor vehicles, and they actually asked me if i wanted to donate the tax money in that particular transaction to a charity that
allows people to go to private school. and that is quite unusual. i do a lot of business at the dmv, and this is the first time they have ever asked me that, and i said yeah, sure, go ahead and donate the money. so actually you are giving people a choice of whether you are sending their tax money to a charity organization that allows people to go to private schools or to the department of motor vehicles. so i would urge people to allow the charity to give it a shot, you know. host: thank you, tony. have you heard of that before, that sort of effort? guest: well, secretary devos would love to see that. i think the caller said they were calling from florida, they are one of the states that have a state scholarship, which is one thing that th secretary devs wants to put in place at the federal level. writes evenoday" though u.s. charter schools have not gained momentum, charters are not going away.
much oftinue to grow in the country. in louisiana, in el paso, texas, the push from business leaders will bring a flood of charters in the next five years. the federal government, they write, give hundreds of millions of dollars to states to help them start charters. last year's winners new york, 2020gan, colorado, and the budget calls for boosting federal money for charter schools, fiscal year 2019, what are they spending on schools, do you know? guest: i believe it would be $460 million or thereabouts. ok, let's go to frank, good morning, you are on with alyson klein. hi there. theer: i am looking at budget commission of the states, and it shows the amount of days that children are in school. state in thea country who students are in school more than 180 days a
year. when you take a 40-hour work week, that comes out to six months. if teachers want to get paid more, i am all for it. they need to work full-time, we can to make our school 50 weeks a year, and we need to do away with a lot of the waste. colorado, you just mentioned charters. they have the lowest amount of schooldays of students required to go to school, 160 days a year. the amount of hours that students are required to be in class, it is pathetic. how can we expect our children to learn anything when they are not being given the proper amount of time to be educated? thank you. host: is that about right, 180 days for the average four-year? true in manys school districts. there are some schools in the country that are year-round, and it has been some question about whether we want to have schools in the summertime. some parents are in favor of that, because summer camp can be pretty expensive. host: we have leo on the line
from minneapolis on our teachers and administrators line. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. am a substitute teacher in the st. paul public schools, and i do not believe that extending the school year is going to do any good, because i see a lot of waste in the public schools that i am in. as aample of that would be substitute teacher, i am not expected to actually really teach kids, but i am just expected to be a placeholder for the regular teacher. secondly, when i go into a public school classroom, at is spent on my time behavioral issues, things like
don't bring your phone to school, please turn off your cell phone, particularly in the upper grades, from seven to 12. pictures and things of that nature. in then i see a lot of waste public schools, for example, my public schools, the students get free breakfast, and i see them waste entire cartons of milk that just go in the trash can, and other kinds of edible, you know, things that are just wasted by the children. and so doing that, you know, expanding the school year with all that waste, i think, is just going to make things more expensive. and further, i would say that i
believe it is time for some of the parents to take responsibility for not sending their children to school ready to learn, and i think that that thesomething to do with lower scores and that in other areas. host: we will let you go for that, leo, no pun intended, he your plate in terms of issues to talk about. peoplemaking sure that are prepared, i think that early childhood education is something that a lot of governors want to invest in. it is something that we hear from presidential candidate elizabeth warren. and a presidential candidate, funding for the early childhood education headstart level. is not something that the
trump administration wanted to one although they would cut program called the preschool development grants program, which is supposed to increase the quality of early education programs. host: you co-authored the early education blog at "education week." have you address or looked at the issue in secondary schools in your blog? guest: it is something that "education week" as a newspaper writes a lot during classroom management, that is an issue principals,s and even school superintendents think about all the time. it is something that always the makers are thinking about trad. there is some money that is typically in the budget. actually the trump administration wants to cut. developld help schools better school climate, that could be used to help schools develop better climate. the trump administration has a small proposal for that, and $1.2are heading
million that would be cut. host: it is hard to get in and just a half an hour. alyson klein, assistant editor of "education week." there is more online at edweek.org, and you can follow on twitter at politicsk12. thanks so much for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: there is more "washington journal" coming on c-span. we will be joined next by your a coalition's -- by e.r.a. coalition's carol jenkins. in ourwe will talk weekly spotlight on magazine reason.com'sd by nick gillespie.
that is all ahead. ♪ >> sunday night on "after words," former tripadvisor george papadopoulos details his role in the 26th presidential campaign in his book "the state target: how i got caught in the crosshairs of the plot to bring down president trump." george: i was actively trying to leverage what i thought were these men's connections to russia, because i believe it was in the interest of the campaign to meet with vladimir putin. addressedieve it was by the foreign-policy campaign? george: yes. president trump had talked about the need to work with russia at a geopolitical level.
words on booktv on c-span2. >> sunday night on "q&a," supreme court reporter joan this talks about her book "the chief," about chief justice john roberts. law: he will determine the of the land. so the liberals want him to inch over a little bit, but the conservatives are trying to hold him back where he always was. meanwhile, we have a chief justice declaring there is no such thing as an obama judge, there is no such thing as a trump judge, there is no such thing as a bush judge. imagets to project an that is not political, when they all have their agendas, of sorts. >> sunday night at 81 eastern on c-span's "q&a."
>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york city this morning as carol jenkins, who is copresident and ceo of the e.r.a. coalition. talke here this morning to about efforts to ratify the equal rights amendment in the united states. ratification, the efforts for the e.r.a. had stopped a long time ago. oh, my goodness, it is always going on. ago.t 100 years it was first proposed by alice paul, who gave so many women the right to vote, and she thought one more piece that had to be added in that was the equal rights amendment. so we are approaching 100 years -- it was 1920 e when she introduced that. tremendous effort, as you know, congress in the 1970's voted to pass it during we got as are as 35 states, and then in
the mid-1980's, that activity stopped. and i guess, for most people, the idea of it went away, and people thought that -- women and men were always working on it. and then in 2017 in nevada because of a state senator named , she -- there had been activity still going on in nevada -- but she got nevada to pass, to ratify the e.r.a. coalitio who were interested in it and working on it all along said -- does that count? and our legal people said "it counts!" so that was number 36, then it went to 37, and we got to 37.5 this year. we need 38 states. virginia's senate passed it. the house of delegates shut it down, so we came that close, separated by one vote, the
equality for the united states womenrica's 166 million closed by a vote and buy a chair of a committee who refused to let it come to the floor. again, themind us number you need for ratification is what? guest: 38. we need 38 states. we have 37 now, and our best guess is -- we have activity now, there are 13 states that 16 originally, and now with nevada and illinois, there are only 13 states that have not ratified. un-ratifiedf the states, and we were just saying yesterday in the office we have heard from every state except
alabama, and this morning, i read an op-ed in the newspaper that said "come on, alabama, we cannot be left out of this quest for equality for women." in georgia, they have already merchandise, saying georgia 38, we are the 38th state. officeou talk about your at the e.r.a. coalition. tell us about your organization. have you just been active since the recent ratification by nevada? is this a new effort? guest: we were formed in 2014, so we are approaching our five-year anniversary. maloney, representative carolyn maloney and jefferson ark, a famous civil rights , we know that people
were working on the equal rights amendment in their cities and their states, but there was not a central place for them to collaborate, so the e.r.a. coalition was formed, and we have now more than 100 organizations and influential people, leaders in their working on who are the equal rights amendment, trying to get it passed, and we do research. it was our research recently oft demonstrated that 94% americans believe that women should have equality. and as alyssa milano, one of our advisory council members said, who is the other 6%? why don't they think women should be equal? and the other problem is that 80% of america's lawyers, and the constitution, they cannot conceive that our constitution, supposedly the most an
advanced from a progressive country in the world's not include women in the constitution. we are up against that as well. morning, guest this carol jenkins, copresident and ceo of the equal rights coalition, talking about the efforts, as you are hearing, to pass the equal rights amendment in legislation across the country. here is how to join the conversation. for democrats, use (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and for all others, independents and all others, that is (202) 748-8002. carol jenkins, you mentioned the editorial in the alabama newspaper. online as well, just a little bit, the headline from alabama.com, alabama and write in my, they living room since they bookshelf
that i keep as a reminder that i have it easy, where i do three times a week, royko did five and he writes 10 times as much and 10 times as well. lady,talking to an e.r.a. and she said the amendment might again fail in illinois in spite of all her hard work. the e.r.a., in case you were born after 1980, is the equal rights amendment that would guarantee women the same rights as men. maybe you thought it was in the constitution already. read it. it is not. the equal rights amendment in 1972, and it went to the state legislations for ratification. most it so immediately. illinois was not one of them. neither was alabama. carol jenkins, why do you think the efforts stalled to pass the e.r.a.? -- for one, i think i must say that the activity, sed, wasfirst pas
tremendous. hawaii was immediately one of the first states that signed on, and then you had rapid signatures throughout the country, but i think it was such and then we came up against some opposition, people who suddenly woke up and that way, we really don't want this, and i think that that created a stall, and then people simply forgot about it. there were so many other things going on that it went under, but i think for women who are daily faced with discrimination and lack of equity in almost every aspect of their lives always knew that something serious was wrong in our country. i always say, people ask me, what do you say to the young girls about their prospects in this country? have been know, we telling them you can do anything, you can be anything.
that is true, but your rate of pay will be substantially less than a man. perhapscost you millions of dollars in your lifetime. you're right to fight against sexual or domestic violence, for it will not cost you anything to get a reaction. if you are pregnant, to keep your job, it is less than a man whose back, for instance, would go out and have modifications. so many, many things that we are faced with in this country, and of course recently the me too movement brought much attention to this discrepancy in our lives , between girls and
women and men, and others, shall we say. i think now that we have had the me too movement, that is the marches after the last election, the capital hearing, -- the hearing, all of these things have increased the intensity and awareness that women in america are simply not created equally, and part of that, most of that is because we were not thought of when the constitution was written by men in a room, all totally white men writinglding the rules for a country for centuries into the future. host: carol jenkins, we have calls waiting for you on the issue of the equal rights amendment, the effort to pass it, finally get it approved by legislators. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and for independents, it is (202) 748-8002.
we hear from martha and trust in, south carolina first up. caller: good morning, c-span, and your wonderful guest. thank you for spending time on this issue. here in south carolina, we have two organizations, the legal women voters -- the league of women voters, and i am madly working on it, and our representative gilda called hunter cobb hunter in colombia is wonderful. she is trying to get the columbia voters to catch up with the times third i think it will would be great. what do you think? guest: i think it would be tremendous. we have been working in virginia, the e.r.a. coalition. we went there 70 times, because there was so much activity on the ground and we were coming so close that we knew it was viewers from south
carolina, please join our calls. we have advocates in the various states to get on the line and talk about what they are doing and how we can share techniques, strategies going forward to make this happen, but we are very high on south carolina. host: how close did you come in virginia? you said you past the senate in virginia, but you could not pass the house of delegates there. how close did you come? , and in the house of delegates, there was a special moves to bring it to the floor, because we knew we had the votes on the floor, and we had one republican move to the democratic side, and we lost it by one vote. one is how close we were. [laughs] waiting have one caller for you, steve in springfield. go ahead. caller: yes, hello? host: you are on the air, steve. go ahead. guest: hi. caller: a quick question for
you. i thought the constitution said "all men are created equal." is not supposed these gender specific in the constitution and is supposed to be for women as well. why would that not be the case? guest: well, because the equal rights amendment that we are simplyto get past says you cannot discriminate based on sex. it does not really say "women in the constitution," although the , because it would say women were not really considered, and you see the state of women in america and a most every state. i am of the age where we used to talk about the pipeline that said "don't worry, women are in the pipeline, and as a certain point, they will emerge as leaders, it will representatives in congress, they will get equal pay, they will have equality before the court." and it simply has not happened.
and what we believe is the only way that it will happen is this amendment that simply says you cannot discriminate based on sex , and that is good for men as well as women. i mean, this is a family-focused amendment. this is for families, you know, women as well as men who are heads of families. to keep in mind that this amendment does not say "let's give women rights," is says let's give everybody the same rights," and that is why we are working on this. host: let's hear from joel in maryville, tennessee. go ahead. caller: hi. my name is joel bennett. you mentioned alyssa milano. fans wondering, i am a huge of hers, and i had seen her, i think at the brett kavanaugh hearing, i saw her in the background, if that is true. guest: [laughs]
that is true. caller: i was wanting to know workabout alyssa milano's and what she does. can you tell us about that today? guest: well, she has been a tremendous ally today. will haveing that we a hearing in the judiciary , laver, hasair said he will give us a hearing, but we are on a little bit of a deadline with the e.r.a. in the judiciary carol maloney and , and alyssa others milano testify, and what she said was so compelling, she said
"i am not in the constitution, my daughter is not in the constitution, and i will not rest until we all are. it just does not make any sense ." it does not make sense to us that something as simple as "you cannot discriminate based on sex" has taken almost 100 years to get into the constitution. carol, you talk about a possible hearing in the judiciary committee. process of trying to pass the e.r.a. expired when? guest: the two things we need to make this happen is, first, the meanstate, which would that that process that started in the 1970's and stalled in the 1980's has now been completed. all of congress and the 38 states have all said we are ready for equality for women. original 1970's amendment
firstdeadline, it was seven years, and then we got an in 1980's seven for three years. is a preamble and not the essence of the amendment our we have voted on, support believes that we can move forward with the equal rights amendment, but representative jacky spear in wouldnate, h res 38 remove the deadline in the senate. ben cardin, who has been a long time supporter of the e.r.a., and lisa murkowski, has another which would do the same thing. so the hearing in the house would be to have people, experts come forward to say why we should just have the deadline removed, and we have been
promised that it will happen this spring most likely. host: we had been talking a short while ago about alabama. this is robert on our democrats line. guest: tuscaloosa. i am from the county myself. [laughs] caller: give me a few minutes, please, sir, i am 82 plus years old, and i have been called an african-american man, and this is history month, but it should be herstory month for women. guest: right. they arend our women, the strongest people on earth, and in particular, let me deviate, sir, i am an african-american woman, black women, used to be called negro league and colored women, you have gone through something on this side of the globe that nothing that other people have gone through.
and women are the strongest of all, they are the ones who bring life to earth! how can you say they are weaker? if it were not for her, men would not even be born! i want to thank you, female women! and black women, i want to thank you, because black men would not have made it! we would have been extinct if not for you. you gave up your body, you give up your time and everything just to save black men. women are stronger than men are. guest: thank you. host: thank you, robert. guest: we will settle for just equal. but that brings up an interesting point, this recent movement to ratify the e.r.a. is very much black women, women of color in the leadership. in nevada, spearman a black woman, and wendy e.r.a.
was on the floor, a senator made an impassioned speech on the floor, and in virginia, and woman who a black was the chief sponsor of the e.r.a. there, so it is true that you are seeing black women effective in political life in terms of the vote in so many areas, true in the movement for the e.r.a. as well. host: carol, let me ask for your bus and pushed back, this is from the "eagle forum," "the e.r.a. does not put women in the constitution, it puts sex in the says, andn," she it does not say what sex is. she says it will up and laws that currently benefit women.
is ratified, she worries, there will be tax dollars paying for abortions, an idea she opposes. your thoughts. i understand her point of view. we disagree completely. believe thehat we it of the term "sex" makes ever more better for cases going forward. it means that we are not just saying let's put women in the constitution. there opening up the floor, concept of equality in this country to simply say you cannot , as happens now often, discriminate based on sex. it what we know is that now is not nice to discriminate against women, but what the e.r.a. would do is make it
illegal, and we think that is where the real fight of constitutional equality will take place, and we don't think the e.r.a. has anything to and paying forn it. that is federal law. we are talking about opening up equality for everyone in this country, and that is what would happen with the e.r.a. host: let's go to nancy next in austin, texas, republican line. caller: hi. one thing i would like to mention as we like to give these nice names to these and amendments or legislation. it is a way to get people shame, oh, if you do not support this, you do not support rights for women, or if you do not support the patriot act, you are unpatriotic. go look at what is in the bill. do not go by the lofty name. they name been this way for this reason, to get you to go
along with it. i also recommend equal google equal rights amendment and schlafly and read what phyllis said about this years ago p or the 14th amendment actually does include women, and this was ruled by the u.s. supreme court in 518 u.s. 15 in 1996. the bill does include women already. i have read from way back then, and i am old enough to remember when the e.r.a. tried to be past many years ago, i was in college. towas all about trying overturn all of these restrictions on abortion. that is what it was about. thank you for your call. you have spoken about the abortion issue. answer some of her other concerns. guest: sure.
i want to say the equal rights amendment is a bipartisan effort. it is a family issue for many women who are trying to support their families on unequal pay. we were just in north carolina. , working with advocate there, trying to pass their bill, and their research indicates that if we were to put women on equal par with men in their state in terms of earnings, it would add $15.3 billion to the gdp, and it would cut poverty in half. people are asking me, because i am doing a lot of traveling now, and they say "what is the predominant thing that you see?" and what i see as poverty. i see hunger. i see families who not only are not able to find a place to live but to find food. women who cannot feed their children. so when we talk about pay inequity, we not talking about a
pie-in-the-sky kind of "wouldn't this be nice," we are talking about real issues of discrimination that affects families in america. in the unites states of america, where so many people cannot feed themselves on a daily basis, families that cannot survive, this is truly absurd. host: let's -- go ahead and finish, carol jenkins. guest: i mean, i can go on and on. host: let's get one more call for you can we have megan standing by in columbia, maryland. good morning, megan. caller: two points. first, you said the constitution was written and passed by white in fact ag men, and great part of the discussion of the development of the constitution was put forward not to own slaves in the constitution or specifically not to exclude that. secondly, i want to ask if you would clarify something for me.
theamendment talks about right not to discriminate, but does that mean that laws yes, as weink that, know, some of those were even then slaveholding people. think at the e.r.a. coalition, what we are working for is constitutional equality for everyone in this country. specificallyeaks about not being able to discriminate by sex, there are so many other people left out of the constitution. we are working with new york system,d in the federal as well, an amendment that would come after we passed the e.r.a., it would include everyone else,
the disabled, the differently gendered. we have a country that has never known equality. after the e.r.a. passes, there will be a two year. -- a two year amount of time the company will have to deal with that. culturally, the shift, where everything else that is operational in this country about how we live our lives, will have to go under an amazing reevaluation. we have never known equality. so many people are left out and they don't understand, really, that the constitution is the playbook. these are the rules that we live by. so many people have been excluded by that, years ago formation, it needs to be updated. we actually believe that so many people at the -- think of the
constitution as fixed in concrete. we think it needs to be amended in many ways and much more often. we should not be frightened by that prospect because the world has changed so drastically. host: carol jenkins talking about doing just that with the e.r.a., the equal rights amendment joining us this morning. carol jenkins, thank you so much. guest: thank you so much. host: washington journal continues here from washington. we will be joined nick gillespie, the editor in chief of reason magazine, joining us for a spotlight on magazine segment, looking at his recent piece on americans trust in government. more ahead here on washington journal. ♪ tv was simply three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs.
in 1979, a small network with unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years a sense, the landscape has changed. ,here is no monolithic media youtube stars are a thing. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. public service funded by your cable or satellite provider. online, c-spannd is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. this weekend, book tv has coverage of the virginia
festival of the book from charlottesville with author discussions on music and social movements, race, politics and crime in america. starting today at 1:00 p.m. eastern with a book on the history of the black national anthem. douglass anderick arthur ashe. -- charles marsh with can i get a witness? jason reynolds with his book, long way down. watch coverage of the virginia festival of the book today at 1:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span two. ♪ >> get to know the freshman members of the 116th congress monday on washington journal. learn more about the most
diverse group of lawmakers in history. , i am real, i am authentic. >> i am a small-town lawyer from lexington. >> i served in afghanistan. >> i have been a mcdonald's franchisee for over 20 years. >> i have a fascination with finding the answers to questions that nobody else can find. is actually a lifelong republican who has never voted for a democrat. >> watch washington journal alive at 7:00 a.m. eastern on monday morning. join the discussion. >> washington journal continues. host: it is our spotlight on magazine segment on saturday morning and the editor-at-large for reason.com is nick gillespie. joining us this morning to look at government, americans trust in government and the size of government.
nick gillespie, having you on this morning in large part to your feature piece on reason.com. the headline caught air attention, everyone agrees government is a hot mess so why does it keep getting bigger? counterintuitively, the less people trust government, it is free much true all over the government, the less people trust government to do the right thing or to be effective, the more they ask government to do. there seems to be a kind of a connection between losing trust in government and feeling like things are getting out of control, both within the public sector and the private sector, and asking the government to structure and control life. in all sorts of ways, particularly economically. reasonsat are the main americans are losing their trust in government? guest: it is an interesting question. when we talk about trusting level, pewon a basic
research has a studies going back to the mid-1960's, where 77% of americans trusted the government to do the right thing most of the time or all of the time. now it is 19%. there has been an ongoing evacuation of trust in the competency and the morality of government in the biggest terms possible. why did that happen? fullyd argue -- it is not clear, there is not one single and so you can .2. it is mostly the actions of government over that time. transpired between americans and the federal mid-1960's,ince the vietnam took place. vietnam was sold on a mountain of lies. lyndon johnson would regularly off you skate about what was going on. you have things like watergate. after that you have things like the church commission and the rockefeller commission in the investigations into
what the government was doing. the fbi, cia, the national security organization. things like the kennedy assassination, the martin luther king assassination, there was a sense that things were getting out of control and the government was lying about what came after. way intinue through in a the 1980's, you have things like the iran-contra feelings, you have the savings and loan debacle. the government ends up bailing it out. the 1990's had scandals, as well. havee 21st century, you the twin issues of something like 9/11 happening and then the government not doing a good job of following through on that. and making clear what is going on or what they are doing. we get these elevations about
chelsea manning or edward have an where you onslaught of government acting poorly, getting caught lying to people and that erodes confidence and trust in government. host: nick gillespie is the editor in large at reason.com. he is talking about the americans trust in government. we welcome your calls and comments. call a set (202) 748-8000 free democrats, republicans can call (202) 748-8001. othersdents and all (202) 748-8002 can call. government aof mistrust of government or skepticism of government? guest: that is a good question. one of the reasons i wrote this story for reason, we have less trust and confidence in government, government continues to grow.
i argue in the peace that the libertarian argument against government that was summed up most memorably by ronald reagan when he said government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem. that is a broadly held view now. --t believable would say most people would say the private sector does more -- the libertarian argument has one the day but it has no affect on the size of government. that is an interesting conundrum. the libertarian rhetoric is not helping and we just constantly hammer on government. this goes to your question, constitutionally or characteristically incompetent and ineffective. i think there are places and times for the government can act effectively, could structure certain types of markets or exchanges or give a social welfare or safety net or a
backstop to people who need it. i believe in a limited government. i believe that the government should be much smaller than it is and it should pay for itself. allhould not be borrowing the time to do whatever it thinks people wanted to do. i am not hostile toward government, per se. i think we need to radically decrease the size of government. points out that as mistrust grows, spending is increasing. do you think there is a self-fulfilling prophecy for some of this, in terms of the more americans mistrust government, or part of the government, the less they want to invest in making that piece of the government better that it is now? or at least make it more efficient. is -- i think that there there are a bunch of things going on and there is a broader
political science debate about whether ideas actually drive theyics or policy, or are the artifact of local concerns of self interest? the latter argument, it is something -- most increases in government spending are driven by entitlements of the social security and medicare, which go to people 65 and older. regardless of what arguments we are having, those programs are set to concede to grow and the beneficiaries are relatively few in number. the cost of those programs are spread out across the population. you have benefits and dispersed costs. that is a political nightmare where the people are getting the benefits will fight for them and when that argument because they are more invested in it. on another level, what is going on in the 21st century, in particular, is we are seeing without fully talking about it,
make some gestures toward talking about it, there has been a radical restructure of the american economy and the global economy, and america's place in the world. this is unsettling to people. the jobs and industries you thought would take you into your sunset years disappear rapidly. they grow up and they die. this is unsettling. i think part of what is driving the desire to have the government do more is at this sense that the world is unsettled and predictable -- unpredictable. we don't trust the government to do anything well but it could do something to secure our borders, for instance. they could give us guaranteed jobs, pensions, things like that. i think that is what is driving it. we are not confronting any kind of open and honest way that transformation that is going on in our lives. people are unsettled and they look to the government to
structure their world in a way that makes sense. host: we are talking about americans trust in government. this color is from new york, you are on with nick gillespie. caller: good morning. caller is from new york, you are on with nick gillespie. caller: i have a great distrust in government. withding this situation ,obert mueller and william barr with the information that has barr on hisfar from side with the papers in the , robert mueller must be watching this on tv or wherever. is it possible he could come forward and say no, this is what i meant. this is what i am actually saying.
or is his tongue tied. is it against some government thing that he cannot speak up and say, this is what i meant? the robert mueller report is a great example of where the government can do something better or worse. the government is investigating itself and investigating the president. think, specifically to the robert mueller report, we are at the beginning of the process of making it public. the attorney general has said by mid april, the public -- with proper reductions in place, it will be made publicly available. if the government does the right thing and is open and transparent about its process and findings, that hopes to -- helps to restore faith and confidence in government. it shows there are some people that are honest. in terms of robert mueller, he
has at various points spoken up directly to the press. i doubt that will happen because we have not gotten to the point where his report has been made public. kris int's hear from san francisco on the independent line. caller: my question is about medicare. whatare your thoughts and can be done about it? this is a separate issue from the libertarian rhetoric stuff. everyone understands that medicare is the single biggest driver of government spending. it has automatic increases in spending. i think old age entitlements, this is part of a larger argument. artifact of bismarck in social welfare spending that started in the 19th century in europe. the time for old age entitlements has come and gone.
they are unsustainable and the way they are funded. you need a lot of younger people -- you need a lot more contributors than beneficiaries. our demographic. everywhere in the world is changing. we need to get rid of medicare and what we need to do or broadly is have -- if you can't afford to pay for your medication, or housing, your retirement, your health care, should do it. then we have government who helps people who cannot for various reasons or for a particular not of time, and we need to have a social wherefrom thathat is -- welfare net helps people. .e can tax less something like health care, health insurance is not as important debts health care. we need to be growing the supply of that like getting read of things by old licensing laws for doctors and nurses and nurses in pharmaceuticals. we need to grow the health care
market. it operates fundamentally in the way the market for food does. we could have better stuff at much cheaper prices but we don't allow the market to work that way. medicare is a big part of that. it structures the entire health insurance business. passed policy that was in the late 1960's. lyndon johnson called it the last act of the new deal. it is of the past and we need to look at how what is going on in the 21st century and how can we find a stuff in a way that is fair and equitable and effective. host: the gallup organization did their annual look at americans trust in government. gallup said americans trust in government to handle problems is that a new low. terms of people trusting government has a sock to the lowest point in more than two decades. 35% of americans have a great deal or fair amount of trust and
confidence in the u.s. governments'ability to deal with issues, down from 45%. what is driving some of that? guest: part of it is the action of government. there is a broader evacuation of trust and confidence in major institutions across society, it is not simply government. people trust big business less than they used to. they trust small business less than they used to. they don't trust lawyers, et cetera. politicalticular moments, many actors in government rail against a government. they say the system is rigged and it is all run by dark money. when you look at the rhetoric, we are in a moment of populism on the right and left. warren,rump, elizabeth bernie sanders, they spend a lot of time beating up on the
government for slightly different reasons, but they say the same thing. the system is rigged, the government is corrupt, it is doing the bidding of these unseen actors. i think that is part of it. the people in government, one of the ways to get into government is demonizing her opponents and saying they are bad actors. in many cases, they are. feedbacks a perpetual loop that tends to drive down trust. host: what about the media's role in adding to that distrust? part of what is going on, and this is a historical, but the idea that people are recognizing the press is much more motivated, either ideologically or politically in some manner, that is becoming more and more apparent. we are going back to a partisan press model, which is such a good thing i think.
withone comes to stories presumptions or pre-existing assumptions about things, making those relevant and visible so people can understand where you are coming from while you are reporting. a hugeia, there is amount, broadly speaking, a lot of bad faith arguing going on. it is clear with the robert theler report in commentaries and non-editorial, it is clear most reporters wanted the robert mueller report to have a very different set of conclusions and facts. the press is broadly anti-trump and then he eggs them on and they act poorly. we get into these loops, ultimately destructive and destructive recruitment isaiah and spread i am not a big government person. whereates an atmosphere
people are hostile toward things like the government. host: one of the pieces we are seeing action to is the robert mueller report. robert mueller and the collapse of the american trust. nick gillespie is joining us. we are talking about your trust in government. we go to fran in toledo, ohio on the democrats line. caller: hello. i think the distinction between public and private is purely arbitrary. private money is the kind of money you lose when you play monopoly. idea of not licensing doctors, you could have incompetent people who don't know anything about medicine try to treat people. i would be frightened by that. guest: absolutely.
the clear distinction between public and private has been blurred for a long time. especially in something like medicare, or the government is effectively a single-payer. it pays all the bills for the services covered by medicare. overall, the public-sector tax dollars pay about half of every dollar spent on health care in the country through various programs. there is an erosion between public and private that makes things a little bit more confusing. it makes it much more difficult to perform with this kind of stuff. there is no simple answer. nots going to take time and to go into a conversation about health care, but for all of the discussions about the affordable care act, that did not fundamentally change the means by which people get health care. we should have been having an argument or we should have been having a discussion about how do we grow the supply and a variety
of the health care delivery? that would have gotten us closer to a model that would work. we already know the affordable care act, whether you like it or not, it is unsustainable. , our asked iser nicholas p. mark is tweeting this. is nick gillespie. as a healthy thing mistrust of government? guest: absolutely. reagan said about a nuclear arms deal with russia, trust but verify. ofshould be skeptical anybody in power because they need to earn their authority and the to show they are acting fairly and honestly, particularly in government.
skepticismly healthy of the people in power. where it becomes corrosive, i am going to get roasted by libertarians for saying this, having cynicism toward government -- an error case, it is well-earned. it is almost impossible to go back to a pre-trump era, but one of the weird things about living in the 21st century where you had eight years of bush and eight years of obama, the government is not spying on you, you have to believe us. things came out that showed they were totally lying about that. of course you are going to be cynical. politicians and the people who work in government have massively earned our cynicism. what i would say is that cynicism can become corrosive. once you start going there, it becomes more and more -- you don't trust anything, you don't trust anybody. one of the social scientists i
interview for my story, talks about someone who grew up in the soviet union. when people sense the system is rigged, they try to grab more and more. it creates a feedback loop that gets us to a worse and worse place. i say yes to healthy skepticism of government and other people in power. we also need to rein in the cynicism, because that does not get us to where ready to go. host: let's go to the independent line in louisiana. caller: good morning. i wanted to bring up an idea for c-span and then i will give you my question. i would like you to do something on presidential pardons and try to have someone in. for matt is, if we
did not find out this thing about the government spying on us through emails and phone conversations, i look at the jussie smollett case, and they have the district attorneys emails, where she was saying she would not be involved but she ended up being involved, anyway. that was like the police spying on the prosecutor. the police and prosecutor were spying on each other. to me, we have no free thought. there is nothing private anymore. i guess the horse is out of the barn. .e just won't have any privacy guest: privacy is an interesting concept. whenever we invoke it, we think we are talking about a concrete block that does not change over time. it is a concept that changes
radically. in the early part of the 20th century with telephones, they are constantly affecting how we think of privacy. when phones were first being used, the supreme court ruled you had no expectation of privacy while in a phone conversation because it is an inherently public conversation. a few years later they reversed it and said you had an absolute expectation of privacy and that is why police need warrants to listen in on phone calls. is alwaysof privacy shifting based on technology and culture. i think what the caller is getting to is interesting. this is something people in government have not grappled with. all of us are having trouble with it. we live in an age of a forced transparency because of a variety of reasons, more people get more information -- hacked emails keep popping up all over the place. if you get caught, part of the jussie smollett case is there
all sorts of surveillance cameras around and you can piece together what is going on. it is hard to maintain secrets, especially if you are acting poorly. you can try to get away with it but it is a lot easier and you spend less time trying to cover your tracks, particularly in government, if you live in the light and explain what you are doing. is fromite congressman michigan. he is a libertarian republican. he explains every vote he takes on facebook. it is time-consuming but it is a model for how to be transparent and how to stage conversations with your constituents. in politicaleople situations would actually act that way. where you are honest and showing your math about why you do the things you do. that is a way to build trust as well as get better arguments and find out better information. host: a few more calls.
let's go to a walter in north carolina on the democrats line. caller: good morning. is sincent to say world war ii, the democrats have brought this country down. they have tried to invoke socialism in this country so they can control people. believe -- host: walter, we lost you there. we will go to stanley in massachusetts on the independent line. externally, going to -- not theries, other way around. we want government to protect us for common reasons.
and less for external use for other countries. why we have to backwards and got turned upside down. nick gillespie, go ahead. i will pick up on part of the topic. when you look at the behavior of government of war, this is a major reason why trust in government is as low as it is printed we are still technically engaged in wars in afghanistan and iraq. we have never had a clear understanding of what the purpose was. wars,ne understands these whether you think they were a good idea or turned out poorly, they have been prosecuted terribly. i think going in and occupying afghanistan and iraq was misbegotten as a concept.
government said it was going to go in and turn iraq into a flourishing democracy and change afghanistan. there are certain things that have happened, but it is a real showcase of government not understanding what it was doing and mocking up stuff as it went along. and hiding a lot of bad stuff that happens in these situations. john is in maryland on the democrats line. caller: this trust in government issue, one thing i would say why people feel that way, there is a right wing media that for decades has been pushing the narrative -- and it started with a propagandais thing that government is not trustworthy. secondly, i had to laugh when you said private markets were more trustworthy and more efficient.
just thinking in terms of health care, left to the private market, they would just drop anybody who got sick and do anything they could to make a profit. there is a lot there. in general, private markets work pretty well. not like private businesses are beyond scandal or anything, but in every city where there are taxis that are our taxiregulated, and commissions, and when you were andlyft come in, free-market options, people move into uber lyft.uft -- there is a lot going on to make a functional market. in terms of health care, we need to be having a broader discussion. if it is true that insurance
companies do drop anybody with any kind of pre-existing condition, that was not the case before hand. sometimes people pay higher premiums, sometimes people could not get coverage and states would assign risk pools to deal with that kind of problem. that is something which a talk about. the idea that insurance companies are inherently crooked and rotten, et cetera, that is not actually true. have functioning markets, those kind of bad actors are easier to spot and easier to regulate or come up with a market-driven alternative or something supplied by the government, like an assigned risk pool. agrees that the government is a hot mess, so why does he keep getting bigger anyway? guest is nick gillespie, always a pleasure. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: washington journal continues with your phone calls.
the top news stories of the week. democrats,000 four (202) 748-8001 for republicans and for all others, (202) 748-8002. we interviewed jerry kindly. -- despite the findings of the robert mueller report. >> we are deeply concerned and have been before the president was inaugurated with issues of conflicts of interest and the emoluments clause. the conflicts of interest are not only about financial practices here in the u.s., but they are about and tangling relationships overseas. he has properties in the philippines, for example. philippinest of the named right after donald trump was elected donald trump's
business partner in the philippines, a special envoy to the united states. what could go wrong with that? despite what the president said, he, according to michael cohen, continued to pursue the possibility of building a trump tower in moscow during the campaign. he did not put it on ice, as he said he did. howd that have influenced he views vladimir putin? the statements he made about russia? in the rejection he engaged in terms of his own intelligence community? those are all very relevant topics. this is not some narrow, gotcha investigation. this is a much broader investigation into this picture and trying to fill in lots of planks. >> here is a yes or no question. is that an impeachable offense? >> yes.
a different question is how will congress pursue impeachment if that is the sole issue in front of us? it is concerning because it is a matter of the constitution, not a matter of new york statute. it was written by our founders, i think in some ways, to deal with situations that we are dealing with with donald trump. >> washington journal continues. host: plenty of time for you to get through and talk about the news stories you are following. democrats,000 for (202) 748-8001 for republicans and for independents and others, that number is (202) 748-8002. in the new york times this morning, talking about the robert mueller report and when it might come out. william barr, the attorney general, says it will be out by
mid april. the special counsel's report into russia's interference will be made public by mid april, attorney william barr told lawmakers. he said the white house would not see the document before he sent it to congress. everyone will soon be able to read it. he said the report that covers moscow's campaign to sabotage the 2016 presidential race, whether any trump associates pagesred, was nearly 400 plus supplements. he planned to testify on capitol hill in early may shortly after the report is released to discuss it with lawmakers. the chairman of the due share congress saying requires the full and complete robert mueller report without reductions. statement, in a
response to the release of the news from attorney general william barr. going back to his story we spoke about earlier from president trump on immigration and border security, this is from abc news with their headline trump threatens to completely close southern border as early as next week if mexico does not stop illegal immigration. we go to a color from vancouver, washington on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment on what nick was speaking about. host: go ahead. caller: the comment would be i find it interesting that all of residue ofns pushed not covering people with perfect health onto the taxpayer. that is all i have. line next up, independent
in new jersey. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about a remark that president trump made last night about possibly closing the border. there is another crisis at that border that a lot of people, i don't think, are aware of. aside from the human and drug trafficking, we have a real health crisis at that border. there was a doctor on one of the cable networks about a week and a half, two weeks ago, and he was talking about the diseases that are being brought into this country by these migrants who are coming. i get very upset when people make comments like, they are like the immigrants of old. they are not like the immigrants of old for this one main reason.
when immigrants came in to ellis island many years ago, they went through health checks. if they were sick, they were turned away. here, they are bringing people, children, into this country with diseases that we thought were eliminated decades ago. into our schools, they are going throughout our population. what people need to do is call the representatives, their senators, their congresspeople, and tell them that we need to close that border until we get this situation under control. thank you for c-span. story fromrelated the associated press, the president refer to this the other day and his comments in grand rapids, michigan. this is the associated press story about another caravan.
mexico braces for a new caravan of central migrants. mexico is bracing for the possible arrival of the mother of all caravans, even as doubts arise whether a group of central american migrants will be all that big. the interior secretary has said a caravan of migrants from el salvador, honduras and guatemala could be forming. there is information that a new caravan is forming in honduras that they are calling the mother of all caravans. it could have more than 20,000 people. that is from the associated press. (202) 748-8000 is the number to call for democrats, (202) 748-8001 is the number to call for republicans, and (202) 748-8002 is the number four independents and everyone else. for independents and everyone
else. ron in defiance, ohio. democrat line. caller: i just have one question. the real reason why all of the caravans are coming up and all that is because of the groups down there that want to control the panama canal. we own the panama canal anymore, now it is up to -- that is why the caravans are coming up. the active groups that want to control the panama canal, and that is what the whole deal is about. we want to protect the panama canal. we want to try to get the panama canal back. that is why they are moving up here. to don in wisconsin. dawn in wisconsin.
caller: thank you for taking my call. the top story would be all of the immigrants are coming here and bringing diseases with them. my question is for the government, people are supposed to see something and say something. see something and say something and government ignores it, they don't do anything. the only thing they do is cover up what was exposed when truth is spoken. whistleblower who files a lawsuit's and is criminally obstructed by government agents to cover up and hide this. what does government do? something,ng, say but do nothing but cover up the exposure of truth. host: another story but this
time canada is the issue. the wall street journal says canada stiffens a stance toward refugees pretty canada is stiff .- shifting its view two years after the prime minister said his country was open to people fleeing war and persecution. a sharp increase in the number has challengedrs the prime minister stance. the issue could be a political vulnerability. program, we of the are asking about your top stories of the week. bakersfield, california on the republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you. aboutment is also president trump's comment last , around closing the border
of mexico this not stop migration into the country. i just want to say this hurts the people that are working in the united states. i believe the democrats, they want the open borders -- they want the open borders because of the vote of the illegal immigrants voting democrat. waspoint i wanted to make really just around -- it does hurt the working people in the u.s. dan on the independent line from new york. caller: i am not independent. i am republican. host: ok. caller: i want to say i am a republican who strongly supports bernie sanders. , contraryhim because
to what is being said, he is not really out to eliminate free enterprise and capitalism. so thatt to change care, peopleealth who need a place to live, people who need an education, these are necessities for you to be a citizen in our society. those things should not be marred by profit. most hospitals in america are by corporation'sby a who have to talk to shareholders. i don't mind if you have all these companies competing, but for the basic things you need to survive, that should not be something -- your lifeline should not be something somebody holds in his hand or a switch you turn on and off. that is what bernie sanders is talking about. hand, -- even
though he violates every principle of the republicans, he speaks to how little hope there atin the republican party every possible level of government because there more latitude is so incredible, we can't predict what they will do in office. host: the front page of the washington post, north american trade deal at risk of stalling on the hill. they write that president trump's effort to rework a major trade deal with canada and mexico is showing increasing signs of faltering on capitol hill, straining under a variety of angry complaints from lawmakers of both parties who will not commit to backing the plan. trump reach an agreement with canada and mexico last year to update the 1994 free-trade agreement. congress must approve the deal and white house has been able -- has not been able to deal with the critics. the administration hopes to get
ahead of the august recess. it is not clear if that timeline is realistic. the post writes in the latest ,bstacle, republican senators including grassley, have begun insisting that trump lift steel and aluminum tariffs on mexico and canada as a precondition for any congressional vote. next,go to cleveland richard is on the democrats fine. caller: how are you doing? host: i am doing fine, thank you, sir. caller: i have been in three military services, i have served this country well. government,out the it is more or less the participation of the people in the government that is not
following the rules of the government and the laws in the constitution of the government. that are a lot of things lot of people should know and travel. we need to start getting together and start screening and watching who we put in -- if we can watch -- watch who we put in for how speakers and try to better ourselves from taking bribes from other countries. host: texas, we will hear from william on the independent line, looking at the top news stories of the week. good morning. it's caller: good morning. it has been used to split people, split countries, split parties. i am nearly 90 years old.
didve seen adolf hitler, he not have any mexicans so he used the jews. he controlled the newspapers and the radio station and controlled the government through threats of death. military, hethe wanted everybody to back him and he tried to take over the world. he did not make it. thank god. uncles thatns and died for us, that is why i can stand here and talk on the phone to you. as soon as you give everybody -- give up your rights to your freedom, you have lost it. our country has fostered. worldn't come into this on a free pass. you have to earn one. people and youp
divide them, and through their ignorance they march right behind you like a bunch of little pets. it is a shame. i have lived a wonderful life and i have lived through wars from the time i was a little kid until now. we are always fighting someone because we have to keep our big war machine going. host: glad to have you up and joining us this morning. we will go to detroit, michigan and the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i watch you every day. i don't remember hearing you talk about these caravans that are coming up here. i heard through congress, one of the representatives said it has turned into a big business. they have air conditioning and the buses.
now i hear the mother of all caravans is coming with more people. why don't we have reporters go out there to venezuela and honduras and talk to the people that are trying to get to the buses and find out what they are being told. evidently, they are not being told they will be put in a cage and their children will be taken away from them. they are paying all their hard-earned money to come up your. why don't you have people come on here to talk about how this stuff happens and what a business it has become? host: good idea for a cast suggestion. we spoke about the topic moments ago. it was an article in the associated press about the ledges caravan. some have called it the mother of all caravans. one, the photo is of folks in that caravan in mexico. the president calling yesterday
for mexico to do more to stop immigrants in their country. in a texas, we welcome patty on the republican line. caller: hello. this is just a follow-up on the question from the lady just before me. secretary before the one we have now, he was on msnbc this week and i think it was friday, i'm pretty sure it was msnbc morning joe show, he said there is definitely a crisis at the border. he said it is hard to take care of 1000 people per day, let alone 4000 coming in every day. if the democrats don't want to believe the president, listen to mr. obama's secretary. thank you. host: thank you. the administration took additional measures last night. the reporting this morning from abc, trump cuts all assistance
to triangle countries. in a stunning about-face, state department officials say donald trump is cutting off all direct assistance to the so-called northern triangle countries of el salvador, guatemala. and honduras. a state department spokesperson told abc news, referring to mike pompeo, we will be engaging congress as part of this process. bronson in colorado on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: you are on the air. youer: my opinion is if want to stop these caravans, put your foot down and move some of
the companies in china, american companies, to central america. host: we will go to texas. caller: good morning. i am upset about the president wanting to close the border. i don't like that idea. i don't see how he can accomplish that. the idea of closing it from texas to california. that called in and said he did not appreciate how the veterans. i am a veteran myself. he is going to accomplish -- the pentagon is going to send money to trump for the wall. what do think about that? host: let me follow up with your comment about the proposal --
the threat by the president to close the u.s.-mexico border. aboutw york times writing the implications about that. they say a full or partial ceiling of the border would close off the u.s. from one of its largest writing partners but it could leave american citizens across back-and-forth with a sluggish or potentially nonexistent system of returning to the united states. move too right that a shut down or drastically curb risks -- wouldco pose significant risks to the economy. it would represent a stunning reversal of trade between the two countries which renegotiated their portion of the north american free trade agreement. pennsylvania on the republican line, go ahead.
i have a comment about the border and stuff. is if you are going -- a lot world's least of countries have borders and walls, why can't we? . host: are you still there? yesterday --ted this is the daily beast regarding joe biden, not yet announced for the 2020 campaign. joe biden can't recall a kissing incident because he is so used
to behaving that way. she was getting ready to deliver a speech as a democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in nevada in 2014 when she alleges former vice president joe biden who had come to campaign on her behalf kissed her on the back of her head without consent. she has a message for him, after a spokesperson said he could not recall the incident. i hope you recognize how your behavior may be feel. cutreport initially in the by new york magazine. one more call, we will go to pennsylvania. eddie is on the democrats line. caller: i just want to say two things. immigration and one about obamacare. the republicans are against both of these things. , this is why there is a problem and it comes to republicans.
if they would help with obamacare and immigration, i think it would be better. the republicans don't want it, that is why obamacare -- we are having a hard time with obamacare and that is the reason we are having a hard time at the border because republicans are against it. him if they would hope the situation instead of being against the situation, i think the problem would be a lot better. host: thank you for all the morning.is enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]