tv Washington Journal 04242019 CSPAN April 24, 2019 6:59am-10:06am EDT
the hudson institute at noon eastern. on c-span to the massachusetts new hampshire representative announces his candidacy for president. later, the national commission on military and public service holds a set of hearings on registration requirements for the selective service system. after that, a discussion on the effect of china's trade conflicts on the international system. on c-span3 politico looks at how extreme weather impacts disaster relief efforts. coming up on today's "washington journal." a look at the trump administration's environmental policy with a formal ep -- about epa robert bullard talks the future of the environmental
justice movement. later, historians douglas brinkley, edna greene medford, and richard norton smith discuss c-span's new book, "the presidents." [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] ♪ this good morning on wednesday, april 20 fourth. the trustees of social security and medicare paint a dim picture. medicare and social security face shaky fiscal future. the wall street journal, social security cost to exceed income in 2020. new york times, social security and medicare funds face insolvency. we want to get your thoughts on your faith in the future of these programs. if you are under 40, your line is 202-748-8000. between the ages of 40 and 59, 202-748-8001.
age 60 and over, dial in at 202-748-8002. join us on twitter. it is @cspanwj or you can join the conversation on facebook.com/cspan. according to a recent pew research center poll, about 4 in timeericans say by the they retire, social security won't have enough money to provide benefits. on the medicare side, yesterday we covered an event at the american enterprise institute in washington, d.c. and here is joe and tubbs -- antos discussing generational issues and paying for medicare into the future. [video clip] in part a,t a -- what we see is current participants -- the trust fund balance is about $13 trillion, which is good. that includes everyone over 65 today in the medicare program
in disabled people enrolled medicare. what about future participants? that would be people that and role after today. there balance is negative. it is -$17 trillion. the numbers are big numbers, hard to understand, but the point is clear that this is a fromtransfer of resources the younger generation to the older generation. interestingly, the younger generation is beginning to enter congress, so they have a chance to do something. host: when it comes to the issues of the problem, you heard joe antos talk about it and he talks about social security. social security has been running a surplus for decades to build up a pull of capital that could down.wn
here lies the real issue based on those projections, the deficit will be large enough to draw down that surplus by the mid to late 20 30's. there are several legislative proposals on the table when it comes to fixing social security spearheaded mainly by democrats. one would raise the payroll cap and tax investment income. that is spearheaded by bernie sanders and peter defazio. one would be a straightforward payroll cap increase. it is senator richard blumenthal, chris van hollen with a plan for per mental insolvency applying a payroll tax to incomes over $400,000. your calls on this, what is the -- your faith on the future
of these programs. age 60 first in georgia, and over. what do you think? caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. this is a scare tactic, it is nothing more than a scare tactic. host: why do you say that? caller: there is just no way politically you are going to interfere with the benefits of those on social security or near social security. you can tinker around with the other things, but that is never .oing to happen they scare the elderly and they are scared enough about security problems. it is just not going to happen. host: you think congress will act when it comes to it? caller: absolutely. aey are not going to alienate
coming into voters the country hoping one party will benefit. the old people, elderly people, seniors are here. i am one of them. host: are you on medicare and social security? caller: surely. host: okay. how much do you get a month if you don't mind telling us on how much do you pay out-of-pocket for health care costs? caller: in social security, i month.00 a what do i pay? i have a supplement plan to my state fromrough the where i retired. once in a while i receive a bill for $19 or $140.
i have never received a bill from a hospital for more than $140 since i have been on medicare. monthdoes that $2000 a from social security cover all of your bills? do you rely solely on social security or do you have other savings? caller: i have other savings. host: do you have a pension? what do you rely on? caller: i have a pension, i have my savings. i am not rich or wealthy, but i am comfortable. i can buy a pound of hamburger from time to time, you know? host: john in georgia. john says he has faith members of congress will act if push comes to shove. of the wall street journal article says the trustees warned that unless congress steps into shore up social security, it won't be able to pay its
scheduled benefits by 20 35. the income comes from tax revenue and interest from the trust fund. social security and medicare phase long-term financing shortfalls. social security recipients will get only about three quarters of scheduled benefits. mark in baltimore, how old are you? caller: how are you doing, good morning. i am 25 years old. with the social security question, personally, am i even going to experience most of it? -- 50rs down the line years down the line. the social security numbers from what i have learned in my education and such is that it has been off balance for a while .
it is more than likely a scare tactic of why it is being brought up and raised and proposals being put up by different politicians. it's all the way to grab voters. if it was my choice, i would privatize my own social security, save tax on the income and work towards it for my .uture and goals that is pretty much it. i could go into a little more detail. host: do you have a 401(k) or 403(b)? do you save money from your employer? entrepreneur, so i reinvest every nickel. we are at the point where we are turning the key to get to that point for our employees. it is small business out here,
it is america, we have to work hard. host: does it concern you that you are not saving at 27? caller: not currently. the business operation we are on will be clear to make plenty of money in the future and go from there. like john said, you have to work hard, have faith, and no that one day congress will work out whatever technicality assad paper they deem necessary -- paper.alities on it is not really anything else anyone can do but work hard and have faith. host: as mark was talking about congress acting on these two programs, the issue of reforming these two programs because of the cost to the deficit has been
an ongoing debate for decades in washington. the wall street journal notes rising social security and medicare costs are expected to weigh on the budget. both programs account for 45% of federal spending excluding interest on the national debt and contributed to larger deficits set to exceed $1 trillion a year starting in 2020. sydni in louisiana, good morning morning. how old are you? caller: i am over 70. i am on medicare, social security, and va. what you all are not talking about is when you turn 65, your va becomes va medicare, which creates problems. doctors refuse to see us because they got a deal with both the va and medicare and so it is double
billing for them. they have to be approved by the va before we can go to them, which they say we can go to every doctor we want. just like obamacare, we can only go to approved doctors. they are sending us from the va 120 miles to see a doctor because they no longer have doctors because of the privatization and mixing the va so ourh medicare services, we are going downhill and the young guys don't know, when they get to be 65, they get and ours dilemma service used to be great, but this privatization mixing with medicare is ruining it for us. host: robert in pennsylvania, good morning to you. caller: good morning.
thank you for taking my call. i only have a little bit to say. when they had the last election, it was said congress wrote an iou and took money out of social security. an ious illegal because has to be approved and agreed upon by the person you are writing it to. back on theirid demand. the government cannot shut down social security until they paid back the money that, as far as i am concerned, they stole out of social security. the trustees what are saying, if congress does not act, both programs would eventually be unable to cover the cost of promised benefits.
with social security, that could mean an automatic benefit cut. later thiss that year, social security is expected to declare a 1.8% cost-of-living increase. on the medicare side, if these problems are not addressed, it could mean hospitals, nursing homes would be paid only part of the agreed-upon fees. let's go to elaine. good morning to you. you.r: good morning to you have such an excellent program today. i really appreciate all the information you are giving us and bringing this to the forefront. i think congress should do everything to secure the benefits of the social security program. i am a retired teacher here in missouri and we don't have state
income tax, which is a blessing. nice.sion is very i have a very small social security check, but i do appreciate it. managedst $150, but i to spend it. i think social security should be protected and, if needed, we need to address the military budget. major top 500 in missouri, especially st. louis and they just received this multimillion a plane,ntract for more than a plane, that they haven't used in 20 years.
.his is not good to me cost for 2018, the social security was about $853 billion. when you combine the programs together, that makes up about 45% of the federal budget for 2018. the social security administration us benefits from social security make up about 33% of an elderly person's income. there is an estimated 175 million workers covered under social security. americanshe number of 65 and older will increase to 79 million. host: crosby, texas, michael. good morning.
how old are you? caller: all right, how are you doing? host: good. how old are you, michael? caller: i just turned 60 this year read i am a disabled veteran trying to get benefits from the military. i have been working on that for three or four years. i became disabled when a commercial truck turned over. when they were campaigning, they said they were not going to touch the veterans, seniors, nothing like that. that is a lie. everybody is against us. they cut the programs. to $10, food stamps $15, you cannot buy a piece of meat with that in texas. up.s up, houses are way
they cut all the food, so all of my money and our expenses these keeping fed. i imagine somebody that did not work as many years or paid into social security. i worked all my life from dark to dark. host: president trump said when he ran he would not touch medicare and social security. the trustees of those programs are saying you need to do something, congress needs to act. as pedro said, john larson, who proposal.rat, has a he was on our program in february talking about what he would like to do. take a listen. [video clip] >> we increase across the board
the amount of money people receive back by 2%. everybody in the social security program will get a 2% increase. we also make sure nobody can retire into poverty. as i mentioned, and unfortunately this happens to far too many women because they were caregivers at home and while they were in the workforce, they were earning about $.77 to their male counterpart's dollar. we make the new floor of social security 125% of poverty by determined -- as determined by the federal government. nobody is going to get wealthy on this plan, but everybody is going to be able to sustain themselves in society and that is the notion. the notion economists have said in doing so, that money gets back to the economy. it is not as though people are
hoarding the money, they need this to get the essentials in life they require including nutrition and food and heating and cooling their homes and prescription drugs. la that why we have a co reflects the actual expenses the elderly incur. pricel it cpi, consumer index e, standing for the elderly. president trump said, he campaigned he would not touch these programs. his budget proposal, this is his budget proposal, congress has to approve this. this is from the new york times, cuts medicare $818 billion over 10 years. billion from social security disability
insurance. it has to go to congress. you have a democratically controlled house, republican controlled senate, we do not know where the number will end up. this trustees report likely to play a role in what members of congress decide. george in pittsburgh, good morning to you on our line for 60 and over. what do you think? caller: the whole cost of social security could be resolved with health care. health care is a social security . as long as this society or businesses want to use it as a market value and make individuals rich instead of putting the money in social security, we are in trouble. i am turning 55 this year. blind. month.king about $1500 a
can i live off of that? no. can i afford health care? no. thet wasn't for entrepreneur providing medicine for me, i would not even be able to afford that, especially with big corporations and stuff controlling all of that. social security, you are talking about cost of social security and we have a health care program. aerica made health care protected right. host: you are arguing if congress or the government would try to curtail the rising cost of health care, that that, alone, could address social security, the security for the elderly because that is where the major costs are for seniors
in this country. is that what you are saying? caller: yes, not only seniors, it would take care of our health care needs. i wish i could quote all the billions of dollars of health care -- security is people taking care of people. has some numbers on how much it costs elderly out of pocket to pay for health care. host: according to the washington post, 10% of americans 65 and older did not seek treatment because of the factor of cost. about 7 million seniors could not afford to pay prescriptions. 80% of prescriptions seniors cannot afford our for serious or very serious health conditions. 92% of seniors believe the cost of health care will not improve
or get worse. host: do you agree with those numbers? karen in michigan, how old are you? caller: good morning. i am 43 years old. i was diagnosed three years ago at the age of 40 with young onset parkinson's. i have not been able to work. i was a registered nurse prior to getting sick. i have short-term and long-term disability. i am applying also for federal isability and i am blessed have long-term insurance to make up the difference because i think social security i only get under 1300 a month and i have two children. thank goodness my husband is a union member and we can get health insurance. through him, i would not be able medication.
i have two kids that will be college age soon. it does not seem like the federal government wants to help. host: explain for folks who don't know that social security has a disability portion and that is what -- when you say you get $1300. caller: yeah. aknow every year they send social security statement that should you stop working, this is how much you would get. because i had to stop working so young, it really has been a difficult fight. i actually have to go in front of a judge now because on paper they say you are 43, you can do something. i would not be able to afford to live. the: just so you know from trustees report, it is a rosier picture for the disability program. caller: that is good to know.
host: let me find that number for you. as i find that number, $1300 a month, what doesn't that cover? even --that would not my husband and i pay $1400 a month in rent. luckily our car is paid off. insurance, he has very good insurance through local 50 a electricians union. any other expenses, my oldest son just started driver's training and that costs $250 for the first set. my medications are about $150 a month. i am lucky and those other ones, i have to go down to cleveland every three months and i see doctors here as well. some of the newer medications, i cannot afford to pay. host: you don't take them?
that has been one around a long time, so it is cheaper. for some of the other things, they have newer medications out and it would be like 80, $90 just for that one medication and i take five different medications. host: are you and your husband saving for college? caller: we are trying the best we can. we started a college fund for our kids when they were little and we are last our parents -- blessed our parents and in-laws add to it. i am hoping for scholarships. even grocery prices, i feel like i am constantly tweaking our budget because everything is more expensive and i cannot go out and make extra money. host: will your husband get a pension? caller: he will and an annuity, thank goodness. michigan, we just got a
democratic governor, so hopefully -- it was a struggle the last couple years. michigan does not often like to bring labor to the table. it is a negotiation year, so we are always nervous. host: did you tell me what your husband does? he works for one of the automakers? caller: his contract is exclusively for ford. data,now he does like -- we are lucky he has a another job now -- another job now. a couple of his friends that work in the union are getting laid off. host: may i ask how you voted in 2016? you and your husband, democrat? caller: he is not registered, but he kind of goes back and forth.
he tries to vote by candidate. we both voted democratic this last year, he is not a trump fan votingis definitely straight democratic now to get host: host: things balanced out. what is the issue? health care cost? caller: health care cost is definitely and, ironically, i was a registered nurse before i got sick. i know how difficult all of this is and i fight with my insurance company all of the time. they don't want to pay for this, they don't want to do that. as a nurse, it was frustrating. people working in health care want to do what is best. a lot of times you cannot, insurance says no. host: how many hours a week do you think you fight with the insurance company? caller: oh gosh. when i was working, it seemed
like all the time advocating for my patients. now my doctors appointments are every couple of months changes.f neurological it is ridiculous what i have to go through to get it covered. host: karen in michigan. this forbes.com, read headline and story, social security disability fund given 20 more years of life, retirees fund same life by trustees. bert in oregon, thanks for hanging on the line, go ahead. theer: hi, i agree with earlier caller, we need to pay back the money congress has taken out of social security. it had -- if it had been earning 2% interest, it would have doubled every 35 years.
i think we need to put a stop to all these companies classifying employees as contractors and make them pay payroll taxes. these employees fit the definition of employees according to any state apartment of labor. host: britney, a story a, new york. under the age of 40, good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: telus how old you are, -- tell us how old you are and what is your faith in both of these programs? caller: both my husband and i are 29 years old, college-educated and we don't have much faith at all. we see how much goes out of both of our paychecks in terms of what goes into social security and it feels like we are never going to see the benefit of that. i don't know what they have in store to change that, but it is unfair to be putting so much in something we may never see.
host: some of the proposals on the table, maybe not for your income level, but some of the proposals are increasing the payroll tax in order to stabilize these programs and address the costs and the impact they are having on the deficit. would you support a candidate -- would you support a candidate who says i want to increase the payroll tax? caller: honestly, i would not. we live in new york city already. my husband and i pay about 40% of taxes through our income. we have student loans and things. even if you do well, you never can do that well. i feel like we are never going to be able to have what our parents and grandparents had in terms of owning a home. the average home in new york city is $700,000 and we have $100,000 in student loans to pay back. even if you make over 6 figures, and i know that is a blessing,
it is very hard to make things work. i actually would not support someone who would increase the tax even more. theyu have student loans, should give you some sort of tax break because it feels like it is being pulled out every which way. host: how much do you and your husband pay a month in student loan debt? caller: definitely probably $1300, $1400 a month. host: between the two of you? caller: correct. host: you pay 40% in medicare and social security payroll taxes, of your income. general.0% of taxes in state, local, taxes here in new york, in general, 40% of whatever you are supposed to be making comes out. host: britney in new york. paul is next, portland, maine. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to mention a hearing i
watched on c-span. and it wasmber 22 the house financial services committee. at the beginning of the hearing, nonchalantly,aid by the time this comes to fruition, we will all be out of office, how convenient. another congressman said i have been in the congress for 10 years and this is the first time this committee has discussed this topic, which was the debt and the economy. they had four of the top economists in the country testify. one of the economists had been testifying before this committee for 20 years. all four economists said the same thing. they all said 100%, no questions asked, no way to fix it, way too
late, that time has come and gone. within 10 years, all four economists agreed social security will be completely bankrupt within 10 years. one of the economists, all four of them use the same word, dire, dire situation. one of the economists kept saying, and this is the rosy scenario, this is taking into account there is peace and prosperity. i have been trying to tell all my friends for years about this, they don't want to hear it. some of them have alienated me and say i am a doomsayer. i think i am a realist. when people say things like faith and believe, faith and social security, basically, the less you know, the more you have to believe. if you really drill down into the numbers, those four
economists were trying to tell us something. it was unbelievable, their testimony. if anybody can find that on the internet, it was the house financial services committee at the rayburn building december 22 and just listen to their opening comments. that will say it all. viewers,ill direct our you said april 22. if you go to c-span.org, you will see a search box at the top of the website. that is where you plug in those keywords, house financial services and the date and that will bring you to our archive, our video library of everything c-span has covered over the past, to some exception, over the past 40 years. david in west virginia, let me
hear from you. punched will. will in wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am 75 years old and i remember years ago when the congress would talk about putting social security in a black box, that they were not supposed to touch it. during that time and since then, they have been steadily taking money out of social security and now you hear politicians from both sides of the aisle talk about it and retirement. in one sense, it is an entitlement because we paid into it and we are entitled to get it back. it hasn't been used for that. congress never put the money back in that they took out. host: you are the third caller that has brought this up. the headline in cnn is -- it is
a piece by max rickman, no one is stealing from social security, that is the headline. let me read a little bit on this topic. he says both members -- both political parties are to blame. he says they are woefully misinformed on this issue, here is the truth. every year since 1984, social security system has had more than it needs. it invests the surplus in interest-bearing government bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the u.s. credit -- u.s. treasury. if you had $2.8 trillion in extra cash, wouldn't you want the money to earn interest? the same goes for the social security system. as the administration explains, the social security trust fund by law, invests in special
treasury bonds guaranteed by the u.s. government. you can check the status of these at any time on the social security administration website. encourage you all to go to this cnn piece. no one is stealing from social security. pedro with the news this morning from the president. host: the president sending out a tweet about the supreme court .earing yesterday the tweet reads the american people deserve to know who is in this country yesterday. of the supreme court took up the question.izenship saying it was sotomayor who pressed no francisco about why after 65 off years, the citizenship question was being asked after being left off the census for so long. she added she had no doubt some
immigrant families would respond less. the supreme court does put out audio recordings of cases and you will be able to listen to that case heard this week on the citizenship question this friday. if you go to our website, we have a special section devoted to the supreme court where you can find the audio recording. a 30 minute meeting the president had with jack dorsey talking about a variety of issues. if you go to the motherboard tech website, it talks about the back-and-forth the president had and some of the response jack dorsey himself giving his employers or at least those who work for him about the meeting saying "some of you will be supportive of our meeting and some of you might feel we should not take this meeting. it is important to meet heads of state to share principles and ideas. if you go to the baltimore sun, a profile of their republican
governor, larry hogan in new hampshire at an event where he was asked about his interest in running in the 2020 election. [video clip] >> this was not something i was really focused on. a lot of people have been approaching me probably around since the time of my inauguration in late january. people have asked me to give serious consideration and i think i owe it to those people to do that. that is what i am doing, listening, coming tonight hampshire and listening to people is a part of that process. i have been to 10 states and i have 16 more on my schedule. i am not at the point where we are ready, i have said i am not going to launch some kind of suicide mission. i have a real day job that is important to me. unless i thought there was a path to victory. bill weld is a wonderful guy and i talked to him just before he
launched. he is not a sitting governor, it is a different calculus for me. i have concerns about the future of my party and the future of my country, so i will take as much time as it takes to make that decision. host: if you want to hear more from the maryland governor, go to our website. we covered his comments at the politics and eggs event in new hampshire yesterday. we are talking with all of you about social security and medicare. what is your faith in the future of these programs? according to the trustees report, social security is on the path to becoming insolvent in 2035. medicare would become insolvent by 2026. caller: the senators, warren and
bernie sanders, have released their tax returns and i noticed senator warren's tax returns, she is eligible, but her family has not submitted for social security benefits. bernie sanders has been drawing social security benefits since 2009, 20 7000. drew $52,000family in social security benefits. he has no problem drawing the max, drawing the safety net of basically $4200 a month for his family. i am getting $1700 a month and earning less than $50,000 a .onth -- a year he earned over half $1 million last year and these senators, these are the same ones that
changed the laws. bernie sanders has no problems draining the system. these people are the same people that have to save social security. there is a big problem. aat is the average that social security beneficiary gets? i am sure it is around $1100 a month. should rich people be able to max out the $2500 or whatever and drain the system? host: you are arguing no? caller: okay. like i said, these same people and elizabeth warren, how come she is not training it -- draining it? bernie sanders, does he need that money? host: david in west virginia. here is a reaction from the white house yesterday to the trustees report. the report, they say, underscores the recklessness of
proposals to dramatically expand medicare, which amount to a total government takeover of health care that would eliminate private sector options and jeopardize seniors' options to health care. bernie sanders was at a cnn town hall monday night and he outlined his views on the u.s. health care system and his medicare for all legislation. [video clip] >> we have a dysfunctional health care system in which 30 million americans have no health insurance at all, even more are underinsured with high deductibles and copayments. we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. how are -- our health care outcomes in terms of infant mortality, life expectancy, not particularly good. for all of that, we end up spending twice as much per capita as any other major country on earth.
let me be as clear as i can be, the function of the current health care system is not to provide quality care for all in a cost-effective way. to the function of the current system is to make billions of dollars in profits for the insurance companies and the drug companies, that is the function of the current system and what i believe is over a four year period, which is what my legislation is about, we are going to transform our health care system. first year we go from 65 years of age for eligibility to medicare down to 55 and cover all of the kids in the country and, by the way, despite what president trump said, we expand benefits for senior citizens. medicare is a good problem, -- program, but it does not cover dental care, eyeglasses, and hearing aids. bottom line is, i happen to
believe from the bottom of my heart and i have believed this for my whole adult life that health care is a human right, not a privilege and the best way to go forward in my view is a medicare for all single-payer program. host: bernie sanders at the town hall meeting monday night. the house rules committee announced the first hearing for the medicare for all proposal tuesday, april 30, at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. you can go to c-span.org for details of coverage of that. this committee will be taking up and looking at the overall proposals in it and has witnesses testifying about it. we are asking you your faith level in the future of these two programs because the trustees for medicare and social security put out a report saying it will 2035 if congress
does not act, 2035 for social security and 2026 for medicare. according to the census bureau, the baby boom generation will have reached retirement age, one out of every five u.s. residents will be age 65 or older. taking action today to fix the program's finances for the next 75 years would require a 22% increase in payroll taxes paid by 176 million workers and their employees. a 20% cut of payments to future beneficiaries or some combination of the two. do you agree with that? mike in minnesota, 60 and over line for you, good morning to you, mike. i have to push the button. good morning, mike. go ahead.
caller: thanks. i am on social security disability. in 2014, i was in a horrible accident and had a traumatic brain injury. that is why i am on disability and i also have military connected disability. one way they could solve all --se problems is to have giving tax breaks to the wealthy, that is hurting the economy, not doing any good at all as far as i am concerned. make the wealthy pay more on social security. 127s limited i think at thousand dollars and you don't pay any more after that level. that is really not a good way to be running the country. if they want to change the system, that is what they should do and it is probably not going to change because most of your
politicians are wealthy people and they do not want to make themselves pay more into the system. host: you are coming arguments -- echoing arguments by democrats saying they will not touch social security following tax breaks. they think that is where you need to address our nation's deficit and the rising cost, you need to rollback these tax cuts. caller: i agree with that. the tax cuts have hurt our country. host: why do you say they hurt? what evidence do you have? caller: i don't really have evidence, but why are we giving tax breaks to wealthy people that do not really need them? i am lucky, i don't make a lot of money on disability, but i am debt free. if i had not been, it would have been difficult for me. host: pedro with some political news this morning. host: texas senator john cornyn on c-spaniar figure
2, running for reelection and has a challenger as of yesterday. carter inagainst john 2018 and launched a campaign against the texas senator. [video clip] wait, wait, wait, hold on. you did not think i was going to let john off that easy, did you? for those of you who don't know senator john cornyn, he is at -- that tall guy the hide mitch mcconnell in almost every single video. he calls himself big john, but shrinks out-of-the-way while mitch mcconnell gets in the way of anything getting done in government. now john cornyn is shrinking out-of-the-way while they try to take away protections for those of us with pre-existing health conditions. weakness, partisanship, gridlock, those are not texas
values. maybe you have been in washington so long that you have forgotten. luckily for us, i am running to remind you. monthly, the website, has a look at the money john cornyn has raised saying it is the first quarter of 2019 he raised more than $2 million, giving him more than $17.5 million in cash. host: factor calls. joe in tampa florida. how old are you? caller: i am 59, almost 60. host: what do you think? when do you think you will start, begin to access medicare and social security? caller: social security because the way the program is structured, i will probably wait as long as i can before taking it. in reality, i may be retired in as soon a year, year and a half. it is something that has been huge on my mind and one thing i want to mention, it always
surprises me when i talked to folks, including relatives of mine this weekend, just the amount of financial resources folks have given up to be able to be in the social security system. it is not a matter of wanting to, it is being forced to. the impact is huge. i have seen folks on tv say you will get more out of social security then you put into it, misinformation. it does not work that way. it works in such a way as if when you buy a home, you don't pay back 2%, 3% more than what you pay for the home, you pay a huge amount more. if you run a spreadsheet, someone like me who started working at 16, the amount of money you pay if you work until you are 67 is in the millions and the problem with this is you
are giving up all those -- this access to government. if you pass away, you are not being able to control that and move toward your children. huge sacrifices in my life to be able to have something for him when we are gone. these programs have taken that away. i know the gentleman talked about being social security disability and talked about wanting to take -- more from folks. you are not just talking about folks that have many millions in the bank, you are impinging on their ability to provide for their own children. with many of these socialist candidates, i am a person who moved away from the democratic party because these folks want to take more away from you and more freedoms away from you even in your particular finances. when we talk about medicare, i
have to tell you honestly, if we were on that kind of system, i don't believe my son would be alive today. in his case, he has a very rare genetic disease, something called danny walker syndrome and he has had issues in which local topline neurosurgeons were not able to help him. we have had to seek out help and our insurance was brought and powerful enough to be able to let us have other people help us. if you are in that type of system, you don't have to do much research, look at the bbc talking about how they need to have trouble funding their own health care system and the hard decisions that are made. host: what will you do? if you are 59, 60, you retire in the next year and a half, what will you do for health care before you get to 65? caller: i have made huge sacrifices to stay with the
company i am with because they use to provide retiree health care. i have sawed out and made these decisions. i probably would not have been with them if that was not part of the package. i would have moved someplace else to make that happen on my own. the trade-off to be with some system where they are going to give you -- have diminished care like you would get with the medicare plan is something i have moved against. host: what do you do for a living? forer: a financial analyst a utility. host: this sounds like a very attractive benefit plan you have. caller: it is not actually super great, to be honest with you, it is an average plan, but what happened in the country is the benefit plans have moved away more and more to be able to -- you take care of yourself with thats and we have made
transformation. i will tell you, just a last thing, i have always said in my 30's, let me out of medicare and social security and i will plan and take care of it myself, you know? the way these systems work, they cause intergenerational warfare. at this age, i would say after me paying what would be the equivalent of many millions of dollars, i am not in a place where i would say let me out towardsthe loss of this my children that i would want to give these benefits to is too i wouldereas in 29, 30, have said let me out and i will be farther ahead than i would ever be if i had stayed in the system. you are giving up huge, huge amounts of financial resources that you could move towards your kids and i think that is the tenant of all these democratic parties, more trust in the
government and trust in that and that is not something that has been borne out by our country and certainly not by any of these other socialist systems across the world, they are definite losers. 60 years andis over in mississippi, good morning. caller: good morning, greta. i have sat here this morning and listened to all these old people complain, gripe, i don't understand. the first year that i started drawing my social security than i paid in the whole time i worked. this man from florida, i agree with everything he said, but i did not even begin to pay millions of dollars into social security and if you get your print out, all these old people that are complaining about it and then to see what they paid in verses what they draw, it is
unbelievable, the difference. i understand it was put in through the interest account and all that, i still can't understand them complaining when they need to be thinking about people your age, my daughter's age, and my grandson's age, what it is going to cost them to --vide this stuff host: we will go to andrew in new mexico. how old are you? caller: good morning. i am 49. host: what do you think about the future of these programs? it is real easy, if you go down the street to the federal reserve and ask them where all those trillions are they lost, that will pay for it. if they want to raise taxes,
fine, we will start with the senate, congress, and their family members. what about finding money in the pentagon's budget? caller: absolutely. absolutely, pull our troops out of all the "we hate america" countries. bring them all back, bring the technology, bring the funding back. host: joe in alabama, good morning. let me find you, there you are, joe, good morning to you. caller: good morning to you. as your earlier screener, i was things thatre are speaking of the heated election, every election, you hear this your it i was telling her, 40
something years ago and this is the reason i remember, i think it was 43 years ago stop by my aunt and uncle. she was sitting on the porch just crying. and i said what in the world is wrong with you? takeays, they are going to my social security away. -- they had been they are notsaid going to take your social security. host: teresa, in illinois, good morning. how old are you? caller: good morning. and i justrs old retired in september of 2018. i cannot believe how so many because ofdisability
attorneys and they are not really disabled. it is all a scam. backs,f them claim their and then they go ballroom dancing. how many people, like half of the country, claim disability and they get social security? and the people that really need it -- that is why it is going broke. scam claiminguch disability when they are not disabled, and they get away with it. it just blows my mind and there are a lot of people like that. host: that does it for the conversation on social security and medicare. we are at the top of the hour. a news update from pedro echevarria. >> reuters is reporting that the ande -- the house speaker the senate minority leader will meet with president trump at the white house to talk about
infrastructure, a $1 trillion infrastructure push, as they describe it. visited san diego to talk about issues of the border. saying that the republican return from that trip, saying the u.s. return ash the u.s. should be mindful of individuals from syria, north africa, and here "nations of concern can they can get to about as easily as someone from what i'm all up or if you are interested in hearing more about the congressman's trip, and also when you go to roll call, they have another legislator, a texas democrat, during the time, learning about businesses in his just rick, took up the job of for several hours. on his twitter feed, marc veasey posted something about dropping off a passenger.
>> wait, wait. hold on. you did not think i was going to let john off that easy, did you? sot,ain, that is the wrong but if you go to roll call, you can go to the twitter feed. here is the interaction after dropping off that passenger. airlines, great to really pick them up. now we are just listening to country music. [music plays] eyes.nd the rain in your i am a brand-new man ♪ host: that is off his twitter
feed. if you watch of the program from time to time, there is a crane in the background or there is a project working in the fountain area, so that is why it will pop into our shot from time to time. coming up, and interview with former trump administration environmental official mandy gunasekara. host: mandy will be here this morning, talking about your company and policy. explain what energy 45 is. guest: it is a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the public on the good news story we have to tell on it comes to energy, environment, and the overall economy. host: what is the good news story? development, we have drastically expanded energy development in the united states while improving environmental
progress. we have when it comes to clean-air protection, we produce criteria pollutants, things like particulate matter, sulfur dioxide. we have reduced those by 73% since 1970. we continue to make advancements in the clean water area as well. recently in this administration we have invested billions of dollars on clean water infrastructure. have delisted 22 sites when it comes to the national priorities list, the superfund site area. we are returning these areas to places where people can come in and live and be healthy and live happy lives. the: why did you leave former epa deputy assistant position to start energy 45? think republicans in general when it comes to issues on the energy and environment, there is not a good dialogue, a good positive dialogue about the
statistics that are out there, so i left to fill what i characterize a communication void when it comes to having these types of conversations, which is see the benefit of americans as they go into 20/20, but also the benefit of this administration and talking about the actions we have been taking, the good responsible actions we have been taking. host: and naming it after the president, energy 45, the 45th president. who funds the organization? guest: it is funded by people who believe in the mission and who support the president's overarching agenda, which is defined by energy dominance. host: the oil and gas companies? guest: it is a range of constituencies, everything from different companies to different entities to individual people who believe in the mission of energy 45. listed onyour donors the website? they are not -- guest: they are not.
there are different ways that you can organize nonprofit organizations. some people appreciate the preference or have a press fence -- or have a preference for privacy in donation. when it comes to these issues, it is unfortunate that there are , ngoprimarily on the left organizations, that will go after people because they support endeavors like mine. so people have prioritized privacy to make sure they are not the subject of personal and harmful attacks. host: respond to reverend mitch epcot, at an event for the new democrat coalition here is what he had to say about the trump administration energy policy. >> we have to work to build a national policy, whether we believe in some type of market-based system. we can talk forever about the various proposals. we like market-based systems because we want the market to work.
but that all has to be tea up ed up,pefully -- to be te and hopefully in 2020 when we will have new leadership that can get something done. even with all of congress, it is not vetoproof. i do not know if you can see i am ank there, evangelical christian, but it is not to advertise my face. it is to remind me when i on capitol hill, of who i am supposed to be representing. i freely admit that this is the worst administration ever for environmental rollback. am fighting mercury toxicity standards right now. something funny is going on. host: mandy, your response? i think this administration has been successful in terms of advancing environmental interests in a practical way. deregulatory actions, that has certainly been at the forefront
of the overarching agenda. it has a negative connotation in some instances, but it is a good thing. the important context is, where are we starting? the last administration use the epa and the department of energy and the department of interior to you their missions to span federal control in ways that were unprecedented and was against the parameters, the clear parameters set out by the law and congress. when we came in, we were deregulating. it is important to know that in the context of deregulation, it does not mean we are setting aside the important admission -- the important mission of the epa and the environment, but to do it in a balanced way that is consistent with the law and that does not take away the cost and benefits -- that takes away the costs and benefits without unduly burdening businesses and consumers with high costs. host: we encourage our viewers to join in.
.epublicans, 202-748-8001 democrats, 202-748-8002. , 202-748-8002. tell us why you and others argued about being in this deal. guest: the overarching reason was, it was a bad deal for the united states because it put a lot of the cost responsibilities and regulatory responsibility that was going to have negative thect on energy jobs, on cost of electricity prices for consumers across the country, and put all the burden on the united states and let most other signatories get a free pass. the focus of that should be on india and china. if you look at what has panned out today, the united states tom 2000 to 2017 -- 2005
2017, we reduced our in missions of thewhile the rest world has increased in missions. the paris agreement was a lot of empty rhetoric that offloaded a lot of the cost on the american people. host: how do you respond to people who say if we are not in it, we cannot influence those countries? guest: i completely disagree. the best way to influence those countries is to develop out the response to doing more with less , making energy use more efficient and safer by developing technologies and exporting those technologies to different countries like china and india. going into china, they continue to develop coal plants at a fast pace, and they do not use basic pollution control equipment. i am not even talking about greenhouse gases, i am talking about particulate matter. they do not use the kind of technology that our power plants have been using for decades.
it is about engaging in ways we can share that type of technology and expertise we have at epa and other agencies, some of our regional and local officials who have the know-how to take the technology, build an effective pollution control program and ensure that places like india and china enjoy the same environmental benefits we have established here. host: mandy gunasekara is our guest this morning, founder of energy 45. up first from flint michigan, a democrat. hi, debbie. caller: good morning. thank you for being on. i wonder, what are your thoughts about trump releasing all the gas and oil onto our public lands? when elizabeth warren did her town hall, she said that would be the first thing she undoes. for that, she is going to get my vote. i am really offended that he has
handed out these leases to his buddies.and oil that is our land, honey. if you are as old as i am and have been paying into the federal system as long as we have, you would be offended, too. i am not a trump fan, as you probably can tell. ruled that we people here in flint, michigan, can soothe the epa because of what they did with the -- consume the epa-- we can sue the because of what they did with the water. we can sue the federal government. believe me, people in flint, michigan, because for many, many years, we had a big general motors imprint here. money intoa lot of these systems. i will go ahead and take my information off-line, but i am really offended that he thinks -- i am almost as offended by
him doing this to public land as i am to him entertaining the russians in the oval office. as far as i am concerned, bill clinton can do what he did in the oval office every day for the neck hundred years. host: i am going to leave it there and have mandy respond. up two i want to bring important points. first come on the leases on federal lands, it is important to know that is a very competitive process. competitive government hitting process -- government bidding process. number two, land development occurs on federal lands that is subject to the strictest clean air, clean water, and overarching permitting requirements that ensure relative protections in each of those categories. it is done in a responsible way. the third aspect of that, when energy is developed in the united states, it is done cleaner, or efficient than any other place in the world. the energy is going to be used
one way or the other. we need to ensure we use our resources in a practical and responsible way, export it out to other countries, other countries that have historically been relying on oil from places like iran and russia, where there are a host of problematic out ofthat develop relying on them for their source of energy. flint michigan on the wall quality -- on the water side, that was a massive failure of the last administration when he came to ensuring and maintaining clean water in all areas, including less populated areas like flint, michigan. one of the things that we prioritized in this administration is to go back to the core mission of the agency, which is cleaning up the air, the water, and ensuring communities have healthy land to be successful and prosperous. on the water side, this administration has helped fund
over $4 billion worth of water in the structural development to ensure that places like flint, this does not occur in places that are similarly situated. host: let's go to rossville, illinois, an independent. caller: regardless of her responses, because you do not , i a chance to give feedback --lly disagree with what with the way this woman is portraying the trump environmental policies. first of all, when you establish an organization, have transparencies about your funders. i have three points i want to make. this is the first one. funders should be transparent. they have agendas. the idea that you are protecting their privacy is ridiculous. courage to step up to the plate if you are making a
donation to an organization, that you stand behind personally with your name for the policies they represent. secondly, at a local level, we in illinois are dealing with the ,utcomes of the coal industry it is about to leach into the groundwater, the rivers. the companies are just leaving it there. the epa is not doing anything. they want to put band-aid berms on a river that raises during any kind of rain or flooding. the idea that flint was the obama administration is ridiculous. the local and state republicans -- thery bad decisions health department, the governor -- all those republicans that are responsible for the terror because in flint michigan.
and at the national and international level, the stuff you're saying is ridiculous. being oil wells in national parks is not responsible. i do not care how you try to portray it. at the international level, our environmental policies are considered ridiculous. you know what? we are not creating the kinds of treaties, we are not participating at an international level. while maybe, thanks to california and the democrats there, we have some decent environmental policies that have developed over decades and decades. trump is trying to completely destroy anything, and particularly his absolute obsession with obama. host: we are going to get in more calls and have mandy respond. guest: she said three. i got four. i will go through them quickly. first, on the funding and relative transparency. my opinion and approach to these
informeds shaped and by my experience in the u.s. house and senate and working in this administration. isapproach to these issues -- has not changed because i have started this organization and to organize and in the way i have. on coal ash, i know the epa is paying attention to it. this has been a topic of ongoing discussions on capitol hill for a long time. it is also something that i briefly worked on before we got a larger political team at epa to ensure that the companies out there are complying with the gold standard of environmental requirements when you are talking about coal ash or you are talking about other industrial operations. in illinois, this is our region five -- they have a robust oversight enforcement program, so i know they are out there on
the ground, ensuring that operations are being done consistent with the requirements and expectations of those illinoisaws and the state law requirements are and on flint, i think that you go back and look at some of the reports that have been done, it was a failure of the last administration. and the reason the previous caller brought up that it was decided by the courts the other consume the citizens epa, that speaks to the veracity of some measure of responsibility -- citizens can sue epa, that speaks to the veracity of some measure of responsibility. on international participation, we are still involved in international discussions. g7, theywent to the have an environmental ministerial's, they do breakout sessions on energy, environment, and other relative areas.
we continue to participate and have robust, meaningful conversations with our international counterparts. i would say that in those conversations, when we are talking about clean air and clean water and the relationship of the federal government to state entities, every one of the ministers from other countries are looking to us because we not only have a clear measure of organized leadership, we have clear actions that produce positive results. this comes in terms of what i started out with. we have reduced air emissions by 70%. we are cleaning up water, building out infrastructure, and we are trying to share that information with our international counterparts who continue to engage in meaningful ways. host: next, tulsa, oklahoma. kid, on the republican line. caller: good morning. mandy, you are a breath of fresh air you are intelligent and presenting logic. that drives the democrats crazy.
i think theat es on the huge benefit of trump's decision, to get out of the past accord, this was a transfer of wealth from the people of the united states to the u.n. for them to distribute. that was all -- that was a big now, and the idea that through the deregulation, we trulynergy independence, are exporting -- we are the main exporter of oil, so we are not dependent on the mideast red so i really appreciate what you are saying and what you have done for the country. host: you were shaking your head while he was talking about
distribution of wealth. why? guest: a big part of the climate accord was financial commitments from the developed world that was going to be distributed to the developing world. and a lot of this was the green climate fund. we had major problems when i was working at the u.s. senate. re-characterizing it as a u.n. slush fund. the administration committed $3 billion while converting the appropriations process. that is a story do not -- that is a story that a lot of people do not focus on, that the first installment was $500 million. in the appropriations budget, that has been zeroed out. nonetheless, president obama redirected funds from state department funds that were set aside to -- for volunteerism. ,gainst the will of congress
and with laid out instructions in appropriations bills per that did not get a lot of attention then and it has not gotten a lot now, trying to assign some measure of similar discussions with president trump's actions in other areas. it was a massive transfer of wealth. giving the money is not what they need. the best thing we can do as a country is, we already have technology. we do not even -- they do not even use them, but we have been using it for decades. integrating these technologies into their existing infrastructure, and continuing that dialogue and those relationships. and then we can deploy it elsewhere. host: are you talking about renewable energy technologies? guest: i am talking about all sorts of energy technologies. a lot of places have coal
reserves, natural gas reserves. they are well situated for nuclear technologies and renewables. it is all of the above, making sure that the technologies that we are employing and helping them with are consistent with the resources that they have available and the amount of money they can invest in building these out. host: we go to cherry hill, new jersey, on our line for democrats. caller: i just want to say that i agree with the minister we heard from earlier. there were so many examples of why mr. trump's energy policy is the worst ever. i want to mention briefly three. he is trying to bring back coal, which is the energy source of the 19th century, not even the 20th century but the 19th century. we should keep coal in the ground. allowing drilling in the habitat
of the sage grouse, that could drive that species extinct. here in new jersey, we love our jersey shore, our beaches. even chris christie is against offshore drilling in the atlantic. willin new jersey, we fight offshore drilling to the bitter end because we do not want our beaches to become like the beaches in the gulf of mexico two years ago. host: mandy, go ahead. guest: first of all, what we have done in this administration is something the last administration failed to do, which is that the first ever greenhouse gas standards -- i am referring to the clean power plan, which was the centerpiece climate action of the last administration, that failed miserably because it was patently illegal, and the supreme court stopped it in its tracks. what we have done, because we are taking the approach of
acting within the confines of the law, and respective of that, we have proposed the affordable clean energy rule, which stops fornhouse gas standards existing coal-fired power plants. in an environmentally friendly way, this will ensure that we have the energy we need to support the growing and robust economy that we have experienced under president trump's economic agenda. on the second piece, i essentially wrote it down as the endangered species act issue of the sage grouse. projects that have implications for any specie listed on the endangered species act. the problem is that it has been used to stop some projects in their tracks because there is an imbalance between figuring out how to protect livable habitats
but ensuring that projects that go forward that have minimal in fact -- minimal impact can in fact go forward. that is at the forefront of conversations across a number of agencies in this administration. it is somewhat of a false dichotomy to say that you can either have this project or you are going to have negative impact on this species. to protecttinue species and continue to develop out clean, efficient infrastructure projects that are needed to build the economy in an environmentally friendly way. the piece on offshore development, again, offshore development is subject to the department of interior's offshore agencies, and they have undergone significant review and rightsizing in terms of ensuring offshore development is done without any negative implications for the offshore ecosystem.
so there is this path forward where we can all have a little bit of what we want, which is a safe environment and robust energy development that will need to continue to move the united states forward as an economic powerhouse. host: jerome, california, on our line for independent callers, you are next. caller: good morning, greta. how are you doing today? host: doing fine. see a: i have yet to responsible drilling project in the united states of america, no matter what kind of regulations or stipulations you put on it. go down the line of how many of those we have had. was, ise i wanted to say am getting sick and tired of this administration -- of all administrations -- saying they did this and they did that, and we are ahead of these guys. i don't care. if your friend jumped off a cliff, would you jump, too?
no. it does not matter what way did. it matters what we do. guest: he makes a very good point. it is all about what actions are we taking. this administration has taken extensive action to ensure that the energy development in the country continues to comport with the gold standard of environmental protection. on the drilling sites, i have been out to a number of drilling sites across the country -- in ohio, oklahoma, texas, even my home state of mississippi -- these are done -- i would urge him and others interested to go out and take a look. these are efficient, clean processes that have to comport with an extensive amount of complex regulations put in place by a team of engineers to ensure that people do not mess up or -- when it then call comes to oil and gas
development, this 1990 oil and gas development has more than doubled. -- since 1990, oil and gas development has more than doubled. oil and gas in missions have gone down -- oil and gas emissions have gone down 16%. you know, you bring up the point of -- it is true, there are accidents that happen. i am not here to defend those accidents and to say that is something we should look past. again, when those sorts of things do happen, they are tragedies when they occur. if that is a lessons-learned process for everyone involved, but what the administrator and has done in the past and even today, when things happen, you take a look at what are the problems and you ensure you have protections in place so you do not get yourself in that situation again. host: let's end with a lighter
moment, or at least talking about what happened on the floor of the senate in 2015. you worked with senator inhofe, and this is a mineral -- a memorable moment, when he comes to the floor and talking about the issues of climate and global warming. what led up to this moment? what was behind it? hest: the speech was that was doing was expressing frustration to the administration, the previous administration, that climate change was a greater threat than terrorism. so we had the whole speech talking about that. that morning, it had snowed and he wanted to take a snowball. part of it was that it was an interesting moment. part of it is, it is a .ommentary on the media no offense meant here, but in general, the media has been somewhat dishonest when talking about and covering issues like
climate change. so he took a snowball to poke a little fun and make light of the situation. that was february. it was snowing there they have been lots of instances where other weather related events have occurred. but the media takes it and runs with it with the justification that climate change is this major existential threat. it was a little bit of fun commentary, pointing out some of -- dishonest or disingenuous that's a better word -- coverage by the media. but the speech itself was pointing out a serious issue in terms of, terrorism is a more existential threat than climate change. he was putting that in context. gunasekara, thank you. host: the president is expected his appointment to the united nations, the current ambassador to canada. she faces tough questions from
democrats on the committee. particularly about her family's extensive business interest and also her knowledge about international issues at a time when the u.s. faces numerous geopolitical challenges. you can find more on that story at politico. bloomberg is reporting this morning that a couple of members -- a talk between the dude -- the two nations on trade. according to bloomberg, trade issues, force technology transfer, barriers, agriculture services, purchases, and enforcement. you can find more of that at bloomberg. if you go to "the washington post," the manhattan skyline, drawn by emil trump in 2004, up for auction. that trumpporting tower is dominating its neighboring skyscrapers. it has an opening offering of
$9,000. according to heritage auction sales in dallas, the sketch that the president drew for a charity art sale, is one of the more attractive, executed versions we have seen, and the only one we recall that was dated. you can find more on that story at "the washington post co. bullard, whobert is referred to as the environmental justice movement. he will discuss future of that movement. host: mr. bullard. first, begin by defining environmental justice. caller: environmental -- guest: environmental justice embraces the idea that all communities have the right to equal protection under environmental law. it is the idea that no community deserves to be dumped on or polluted, that it is basically a civil rights, human rights issue. host: when did you get involved
in this movement and why? well, in 1978 before there was a movement, i was involved in a lawsuit. i was an expert witness on a case that involved -- right here in houston, where there was a plan to place a municipal landfill in the middle of a predominantly black community. lawsuit on filed a the part of the residence, and i got drafted into that lawsuit and i had 10 students in my research class at texas southern. what we discovered, from the 30's to 1978, 100% of all the were --ed landfills when i say predominantly black, these are all black communities
that were created by jim crow. city of eight of the incinerators were located in black neighborhoods. three out of four landfills are located in black neighborhoods. the 1930'sumped from up to 1978, most of it was dumped into black neighborhoods, even though blacks make up only 20% of the population. it was the first environmental racism case that used civil rights law, challenging that this should not be sent to a disproportionate community while everybody produces garbage. this was way back in 1978. host: did you win? guest: we lost a lawsuit, but we won a war. this is a case where we showed
was not environment somehow valued by all as the same. all communities are not created equal, that some are more equal than others. class or other, incinerators, refineries, or chemical compounds, et cetera for this is before there was a movement this is 1978 the environmental justice movement really took off in 1982 in warren county, north carolina, with the location of a toxic waste dump. mobilized,nized and five hundred people arrested, saying no to being dumped on, note to pollution, no to environmental racism. host: is it different than the
larger environment of movement? guest: of course it is different. the environmental movement, conservation movement has been around since the 1880's. for the most part, the environmental movement, the green movement was predominantly that reallye-class, did not address many of the issues that disproportionately impacted poor people and people areolor, and people who basically disenfranchised politically, economically. so the environmental justice movement was a response to the lack of issues being addressed by the larger movement. the environmental justice movement is a grassroots, bottom-up of mint that takes into account the fact that solutions and dumping and environmental degradation should
not be targeted to just one community. having a clean and safe environment should not somehow be an aspirational thing. it should be something that works in all communities. the environment of justice movement deals with the intersectionality of environmental issues, civil rights issues, health issues. the core issue that brings them together is justice. .ost: republicans, 202-748-8001 democrats, 202-748-8000. .n independents, 202-748-8002 have things improved since that lawsuit in the 1970's? guest: we made a lot of progress in getting the awareness out, that this is really an issue. it is not something made up by some radical wildlife a
sociologist -- wildlife sociologist. where people live impacts the quality of life. if you look at zip codes being the most potent predictor of health and well-being and quality of life, all zip codes are not created equal. we have been able to build a movement that is not just the united states, but globally. we have been able to establish research centers at the colleges and universities. courses are being taught, has been changed across the colleges and universities. we have gotten some of the states across the country, at least 48 states have passed environmental justice legislation, executive orders, or laws to deal with these issues. orders have executive signed by president clinton in 1994 to deal with this issue. the organist, the fact that more people are working on these
issues, young people, students -- we have made progress. but the issues of communities of color and poor people are being disproportionately impacted, being dumped on, still exist. racism in the environment of has noton apparatus been eradicated. and as long as we have this type of injustice, we will still have a movement. nate, watching from milwaukee, on our line for democrats. caller: thank you very much for having me. , thinkingg to ask about the law and lawsuits are really of the two global warming, which is already causing damages to people. as we look forward, we will probably be coming -- be using more property damage to people. two i can think of are the ricocanes that hit puerto
and houston, and how people lost their homes thanks to global warming. and in houston, they do not really warn you beforehand, so they know there are places that developers just let the customer deal with that. without giving them at least a warning that their house, where they are planning on living, is not going to be safe if a hurricane heads their way. so i think this is extremely disrespectful. property, when people areing claiming they want to protect people's private property. host: professor bullard? injustice is a major issue being addressed across the globe. here in the united states, i
wrote a book on hurricane race playingng at and environment. if you look at communities that , flooded, apacted lot of conditions created vulnerability that were there before the flooding. climate change and global warming will exacerbate the disparities that exist. i live in houston, and i had to evacuate. if you look at the communities that were impacted, the greatest by the flooding from harvey, there is an environmental justice component. largest population minorities, african-americans, that were affected. rainsithout torrential like harvey, places flood. when we talk about the justice part of addressing climate
change or addressing issues related to the disasters, studies after studies have found that instead of money and proposals for recovery following need, what happens is that money follows money. money follows power, and money follows whites. in many cases, communities of color are even worse off in terms of the value in equity when it comes to property values. what it communicates is that the money that goes to disaster he -- disaster recovery, there is a lesson in how we address climate. the question is, will the government respond to climate response to climate change be fair? in many case, awareness does not
take place. it is oftentimes the dominant pattern and paradigm of power. host: mississippi, we will go there next and talk to her become on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. papere an international and they went on here and pull down the plan. there were schools -- pulls down the plant. there were schools next to to it. district, the international paper mill was able to pull our lawsuits out. we have a senior hospital. they had the records of what is going on with our people here. they know that we are dying in a massive number. they came in and justify doing what they did by putting out water treatments instead of doing anything for the people. but i think our real problem is,
it is our black caucus. we really need reparations because, like this gentleman is saying, without money you cannot get the right representation. just like people have loaded it in the prisons and everything else. making sure that you are not economically powered like jewish people. jewish people have power because they have money. they have the players to help them. but when we have our black caucus, our black caucus is being led by the democratic that us off the site issues, like chasing after russian collusion and things like this, where we as black people are really suffering. we are allowing people to come in this country and have more rights than black people do. host: we will leave it there. professor?
book a number a of years ago called "dumping in dixie." like moss communities point, black communities in the south that hosted polluting facilities, and in many cases these facilities were not brought to communities by black people. they were not voted in, they came in and often times sat down on top of these communities, and some of these communities were founded right after slavery, so the communities basically had fought and survived slavery, and jim crow, and after these industries came in, in the 1950's, post-world war ii, some of them do not exist anymore. they have been pushed out. they have been basically populated. it is ironic -- they have been
basically depopulated. it is ironic that many of them could not survive racism. goesical power oftentimes hand-in-hand with environmental justice. addressare trying to issues of economic justice, environmental justice, a lot of , basicallyawsuits the strategy of last resort, are getting people educated and informed about what is coming out of the smokestacks and what is happening to can the community in terms of health impact and getting people aware that there are other ways to mobilize and get the enforcement that is needed. again, the fact that the environmental justice movement has come about to really make people aware of all of those components and how things are connected.
host: has the democratic party done enough on environmental injustice? guest: let me just say this. the injustice that has taken place over the last decade, or even centuries, has not been democrats, republicans. it is basically people in power. none of the parties have done enough to address racism and discrimination. so the fact that we have laws with allon the books different administrations that come in, the laws on the books, whether talking about civil rights laws, housing, employment, voting -- most of these laws are not enforced equally across the board. environmental protection is no different. when we talk about getting more and more democrats to step up to the plate, of course they need to step up to the plate.
in thisican-americans country are democrats. but the fact that that is the case does not necessarily mean that industries will enforce their compliance. so we have to make sure that our elected officials really are accountable and are forced to make these industries accountable. and whether or not you have a republican or democratic administration, if pollution is lowering people's operative values and creating health problems, it should not matter. it is pollution with lead or mercury, gets in the air or the ground or the water, gets into the schools that are next to those facilities, it should not matter whether there is a republican mayor or president or a democratic governor, we should enforce the law because the impact on health is the same. host: kenny from laurel,
maryland, independent. caller: i really appreciate what you're doing. thank you for your work and your team. i think it gets to the point where it comes down to education. engineer, i work with water resources. we have public meetings or community meetings, and we see where the people show up. if you are -- most of these injects -- it is a mixture wealthy neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods. but i think the differences, the wealth gap, not necessarily the race gap but the wealth gap, rich people, wealthy people show up to these public meetings, express their opinions, and their voices are heard. but when you go to some of these
foreign immigrants -- not necessarily black or white -- you get a lower turnout and public participation. so i really think that education is the key here. necessarily a race issue but more of a wealth issue -- the rich versus the poor. host: let's take that point. let me just stop you right here. the data, the research, the studies, at least four case of studies are showing that race is still the most potent factor that determines who gets dumped on. are enforced in terms of our laws. you know, the study that i did in houston, the case that i talked about early on in 1979, all the landfills
that were located in houston black communities, they were not all poor communities. the subject was a black middle class suburban subdivision. ts ownedhe residen their homes. every study done by the united church of christ in 1979 showed that race was still the most potent factor that determines where these facilities are located. when we updated in 2007, we found the same thing. 56% of the residents live within a one-mile radius of hazardous waste facilities in the united states, they were people of color. that number joins to -- people only make up about 38%, 39% of the u.s. population. in the study that was done by a sociologist at the university of colorado, african-americans who
make $50,000 to $60,000 a year likely -- will more likely live in polluted areas than whites who makes $10,000. you find that those factors oftentimes determine what goes into your neighborhood and what does not go into your neighborhood. the negative impact of all of this pollution up whenh really shows we talk about something like asthma rates. four to fiveen are times more likely to be hospitalized. black children are 10 times more -- this is not just a sexy topic or a trendy topic or just talking about poverty. it is also talking about race and how race into plays with environmental protection. host: scott is a republican in
lafayette, louisiana. you are on the air. caller: thank you, greta. i wanted to ask your guest about two or threeite examples of economic justice successes in the united states. host: professor? guest: economic justice means that when decisions are being enginesbuild economic for a particular area, whether it is some type of corporate business, et cetera, there needs that some kind of equity goes into who will benefit, and also we need to calculate what the costs are in terms of externality. oftentimes that is not done. as we move to greening our energy, when we talk about renewable energy in wind and solar, we need to talk about making sure that poor people and people of color, and people who
have been left behind also benefit from that. getting more and more people of color owned businesses, going into renewable energy, talking about this sustainable agriculture, looking at hermann farms -- at urban farms, issues related to educational opportunities for having more of our colleges and universities, distort label colleges and universities become greener and more sustainable -- historically black colleges and universities become greener and more sustainable, and that young people are given more opportunities to have careers in different fields where we are underrepresented. it is not just jobs that we are talking about but also businesses, having greener businesses and using those types grow ourunities to economy, but also to spread the wealth. host: mack is next in augusta,
georgia. independent. caller: yes, thank you, professor bullard. appreciate your time, appreciate the topic. i am concerned that we have a lot of hypocritical people in the country that think that they want to protect the environment at somebody else's expense, at their own environment, they want you to leave it alone. for instance, in los angeles and in san francisco, you have feces on the street, needles on the street, very dangerous situation to the health of the people who live there. yet the people in charge not do anything about it. that does not seem to be environmental justice to me. thank you, sir. guest: environmental justice goes to the issue of health, the physical environment, the natural environment. transportation. you know, looking at energy,
looking all of those things that intersect. communities that oftentimes may jobs,ve access to oftentimes the same communities that do not have access to health care or transportation. so when we talk about cleaning up a city and greening up a city and getting a city, making it more livable and sustainable, it also means dealing with homeless , poverty, and dealing with low wealth communities. i think when we look at the full issue of intersectionality, where we live, work, play, worship, as well as the physical and natural environment, that is what environmental justice is. it does not leave a lot off the table. as long as we just see the environment as a physical environment or the wetlands or out there as opposed to the
urban environment and how it connects with cities and suburbs and rural areas and people, is the and animals, that larger context of what environmentaland making sure ths left behind because you are poor . you shouldn't have to struggle to get to a park just because you are physically on the other side of the tracks. we have food deserts. neighborhoods without grocery stores. neighborhoods that don't have parks. these are the same neighborhoods where people have challenges getting to jobs. bringingwe talk about justice and equity into that framing, that is how our movement, our environmental justice movement has grown and has started to shape much larger movements for all. host: if our viewers want to
learn more, you can go to tsu.edu and you can follow him on twitter @drbobbullard. appreciate it. guest: my pleasure, thank you. host: coming up, presidential rankings. as part of a the latest c-span book, "the presidents." [video clip] together, this book we worked on nine of these, collected works of his interviews, and this one we decided to actually bring two resources into play. first of all, ryan has been doing a sunday night interview programs for years now and we have an archive of his interviews. in fact the odometer on the 250ives is about to hit thousand hours this month. not all brian. but. [applause]
but among the people he has interviewed are the three people who have become great friends of ours over the past quarter-century. some of the country's leading contemporary presidential historians. in addition to having this vast archive of collected works, about 20 years ago -- in fact exactly 20 years ago, 1999, we had done this year-long project that each of these folks was involved in, american president life portraits. i have c-span colleagues nodding , thinking about what a big job this was. we took it on ourselves to go to aon location presidential history site associated with every single president and do a two-hour program on their lives. it almost killed us, but we made it through. at the end of this we thought -- we have got all of this, we need to put some kind of cap are on it. we talked to them and decided to do a survey of historians and take all of this biographical
material that is more anecdotal in nature and try to put a little bit of science data behind it. we gathered them together, along with dr. robert browning, the head of our archives, and john's ande, teacher at maryland, we got into a wonderful debate, you all would have loved to have been there, about what the 10 qualities of leadership should be to do a survey of 100 presidential historians. so the idea for this book was actually to merge the survey work that we have done three times now as presidential historians with the collected content of presidential biographers. so the book that you are going to learn more about tonight was actually organized not chronologically, but where the presidents fell in line with that survey. so you are jumping to history but are also going through a best tom from the very the very worst rated leaders in our country. and you learn more about some of
the characteristics and qualities that put them in that ranking. so, let me tell you about the qualities that we finally agreed on. the first is public persuasion. the second, crisis leadership. that can come in all sorts of forms. the third, economic management. the fourth quality was moral authority. international relations, which includes not only diplomacy, but also wore. administrative skills, including the assembly of a cabinet and your advisors around you. the next, the all-important relations with contra -- congress. you can have all of that and still not get a congress. this one reminds me of george h.w. bush, visions and sent -- setting agenda. one, performance within the context of their times. so, what we did was send a
survey out to 100 historians, this was three times now, and we worked very hard to get people andifferent demographics political points on the spectrum so that we could represent lots of different points of view. this survey is now -- the first one was so successful, we know do it every time a president leaves office. to answer your question, president trump has not been rated and we will not formally rate him until he leaves office. and we are back with the three historians who have been contributors to the c-span survey of presidential leadership over the years and contributors to the new book, "the presidents." at our table,ey history professor. edna greene medford, dean at the college of arts and sciences. ,nd richard norton smith
presidential historian and author. thank you all for being here. let's start with the rankings for the top five. you have a ramming and george washington, franklin roosevelt, ranking ofyou have a george washington, franklin roosevelt, theodore roosevelt, abraham lincoln, and white eisenhower. guest: eisenhower has moved up. he was always around eight or 10, now he has moved into the top five. why is he having a moment? part of it is that people are looking at his record. it was called the hidden handed presidency, when documents were opened in kansas, people seeing that eisenhower really was engaged in the hands-on. he had one or two terms. he was a fiscal conservative. he did many innovative things, like the eisenhower interstate highway system, which we'll benefit from.
nasa,. lawrence seaway, and having earl warren on the supreme court, for assuring in the beginning of the death of jim crow. the sending of federal troops to little rock. he got, the fact that out of the korean war and didn't get us into a major war. 1961 he gave the farewell address where he warned about the industrial military complex in america. like bigat don't government, libertarians, and people on the left, they loved his farewell address. we pulled together a coalition to make the top five and on the top of your list is abraham lincoln. lincoln is always really number one. just because, you know, he came into office as -- at such a dangerous time, winning in 1860. he wasn't even on the ballot in seven states. he was there at the executive mansion. didn't get named the white house
until theodore roosevelt called it there. the battle of bull run virginia, where the confederates were close to washington. you are watching a president having to navigate himself through these dangerous times and in the end he won another second term. in 1864 he won an election in the middle of the civil war as a victorious commander in chief. some of the things that he wrote are almost like foundational texts, emancipation proclamation, gettysburg address, and both of his inaugurals. so together there really is nobody like lincoln. the only person knitting on his heels is george washington -- nipping on his heels is george washington. host: what do you think of the top five, dean medford? guest: they are able to rise to the occasion in moments of
crisis. they had great vision for the country and were able to that thete in ways guys at the bottom were not able to. guest: yeah, lincoln had that marvelous line at a particularly critical juncture in the war where he said that the occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise to the occasion . that's as good a yardstick as i know for measuring presidential performance. five, look at those first actively four of them were crisis managers. would have liked to be and supposedly lamented the fact that there wasn't a war during his presidency that would have guaranteed him the opportunity to be with the immortals, the , whose identity never really changes. the other thing, thinking of some mixes, the first four are all activists.
and they are all centralized. they all personalize power in the presidency during times of crisis. eisenhower really is, in some ways, these are almost 19th-century, kind of a whigish president. he wasn't comfortable with the bully pulpit. he thought that people exaggerated the impact of a presidents words. he said that if his words with a measure of presidential leadership, the american people ernest hemingway. he really is kind of an odd man out. finally, though, to show you how fluid the rankings are, the first time that ike was ranked , he came in 22nd, behind chester arthur. and here he is, fifth. so there's hope for fill in the blank.
james buchanan. [laughter] host: to each of you, does dwight eisenhower or anyone else on this list move up into the top five or beat out abraham lincoln, george washington, etc.? guest: no one is going to beat abraham lincoln or george washington eight -- anytime soon. and franklin is quite remarkable. times,t that he won four 32, 30 6, 40, and 44, that he guided us through the great depression with his new deal programs, you know, social , we all now live in a social security america of franklin. and being the commander in chief for world war ii, facing off against not see germany and many of theing so top generals and admirals, putting them in the top slot, there's a group of books from
nigel hamilton about fdr pointing out how he is the mastermind of d-day, not winston churchill or someone else. he is very secure at number three. there are people who think he should be number one because of thelong we have lived in shadow of fdr, all the way from 1945 to 1980, when reagan gets elected and starts saying that that's enough of federal government overreach. even though reagan actually continued to do big federal programs, he was starting to say that we need to cut taxes, dialback government, because he was a post-vietnam president and the vietnam war made many people think that the government lies to us. mcnamara, kissinger, johnson, lying. i'm interested to keep watching the rise of lyndon johnson because of the unum, which was closer to the time such a
detriment to johnson, but more and more people are recognizing the civil rights acts of lbj as being very significant and when it comes to issues of race relations, lbj is dominant right there with abraham lincoln. when you look at the next five in the rankings, lyndon johnson at number 10, number five, harry truman, excuse me, never six harry truman, john kennedy, ronald reagan and lyndon johnson. dean, go ahead and answer that question. we tend to interpret these administrations based on our own flexibilities. one of the things that we considered in the survey was how well they did during their times and in the context of their times. shelvestill cannot just our own beliefs about how they should have behaved based on our time. , botht you see occurring
in terms of people moving up and people moving down is how we are viewing ourselves, our times, and what's important to us through our prism. it's absolutely right that some of these people are moving up in terms of what's happened with civil rights. you will see someone like grant rising as a confluence of that. conversely, tumbling. andrew jackson, i'm amazed, he always -- in the school of presidential leadership, jackson was knocking at the door of the immortals. he was sixth or seventh, a near great. but because he was seen as the a champion of frontier democracy that was interpreted more generously 30 or 40 years ago as democracy. the irony is, the more genuinely inclusive our democracy becomes, the more we tend to question the
notion of jacksonian democracy, which goes to edna's point. but above all, jackson was admired for the enemies he made. the bank of the united states, the perfect symbol of aristocratic rule, corruption, where is he was on the side of the little man. that seems to have been swept and today it's jackson the slaveholder, jackson the indian killer and jackson, some people .hink, the economic illiterate and there's a final factor that must be said, kind of guilt by association, the timing of this survey, right after the election, the fact that donald trump has chosen to embrace andrew jackson, to put his portrait in the oval office, to visit the hermitage on his 250th birthday, clearly it's the one president he has kind of reached out and publicly identified with and i suspect that has cut
andrew jackson support in the academic community. calling all history junkies this morning. we want to get your thoughts on the best and worst residence, in your opinion. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you call these folks the presidential losers, franklin pierce, warren harding, john tyler? guest: those are the bottom. we asked over 100 top presidential scholars to participate and i don't think we missed a beat picking those as the bottom five. buchanan's inaction action during his presidency when the country was starting to become unraveled? where he did nothing? paving the way for the civil
war? it's really going to be hard to juggle them all, but that bottom perch, someone might be worse than buchanan, but all of those people that you mentioned, all the presidents -- above that, william henry harrison, he was only president for one month and he died of pneumonia after giving a long-winded inauguration to. to be ranked below someone who was only president for a month gives you an idea that there is a net negative with those five, they actually did damage to the institution of the presidency. for different reasons, warren harding has come into the news because of the ohio gang, the corruption, the teapot dome scandal, where his secretary of the interior was doing a land deal in wyoming. guy,ame somebody, a fall that comes out of the teapot dome scandal, secretary fall.
william henry harrison, even someone like him, one month, why even rate him? fascinating life, william henry harrison. whereis election, that's the word ok comes from. , itody using the term ok comes out of in 1840 election because he signed a document ok van buren, meaning he read it at his old kinderhook home. and the term booze comes out of booze rallies in philadelphia. he would give you liquor if you got a political -- went to one of his political events. and they rolled the ball of twine in ohio, where he claimed a home all the way to washington, saying keep the ball rolling. here's a president of only one month, but the lore is quite great. some of those bottom ranked presidents, it's quite wonderful to reason -- to read the essays.
those are as good as the lincoln or jefferson essays. what's happening with harrison's it's a part of that new popular culture that has been ushered in with andrew jackson, the populist movement than. i agree, what's happening with harrison is phenomenal in terms of the electorate and how to use the electorate. how to get them to vote for you. if for no other reason than that , he is considered to be at least in the rankings. mr. smith, your thoughts on the bottom five? guest: i once got a letter when i was looking at the herbert hoover library. he has his own flirtation with the lower ranks of presidents. i got a letter from the director of the james buchanan memorial foundation because on c-span i had said some unflattering things about his namesake and he told me i had better be careful.
the implicit threat was that herbert hoover is at least as vulnerable as james buchanan. it's interesting that those names are as in some ways protectable, are as fixed. both ends of the game are locked in. true, it may but we, we, there's a consensus on who the most successful and least successful presidents are, and that's interesting, that should tell you something. host: does it tell you something about legacy? this is what you write in the book, that legacy matters? matters.gacy but legacy, it's funny, there has been revisionism since george washington left office. but it is of two schools. there is a revisionist history
about what we discussed. johnson tapes become available. when the eisenhower papers are open, we then have primary source material on which we base a revised estimate. and then there is revisionism that -- it's almost like a carousel. like an escalator. it goes up. it isn't new information, another generation has a different set of conventions. a different way of seeing the same information. that, as you referred to, after the 1960's we discovered millions of americans who had been left out of our history story and, disproportionately, they were the americans that andrew jackson in effect made war on. let's get our viewers involved. kathleen, dayton, ohio, you are first. caller: great show. i'm interested if we can read
the survey. i believe that one of your guests said there were 100 scholars and historians that the survey is based on, the rankings. can we go read why these scholars ranked the way they did? fascinating. i'm hanging out with a lot of 90-year-olds, i've been taking care of my 92-year-old mom for the last x years. it is amazing. my mother jumps up when she sees sanders on the screen and the same comment is always -- he reminds me of franklin roosevelt. [laughter] then the love that these 90 some murals -- 90 some , sheolds have for franklin remembers him coming into the coal mining town and standing up for the union members. i'm fascinated with that love of franklin. i do want to ask c-span 2 do a program on the greatest crimes
committed allegedly by regards to like, say, nixon, impeachment, clinton, and now we jump over iraq and we know pelosi didn't want to hold the bush administration accountable, and we jump to trump. the degree of severity of the crimes, i would love to see a program like that. for the suggestion, kathleen. i would tell kathleen and others to go to www.c-span.org /thepresidents to learn more about the book and the survey, that is where you can read through the results. fdr? let's start with that. guest: fdr, like andrew jackson and ronald reagan, is a transformational president. he arrived at a time of great crisis, great testing. he famously said to a friend -- if i fail, i will be the last president of the united states.
not an extreme statement at the time. he not only succeeded in the contemporary context, but the sack -- the fact that 60, 70 years later there are people that still feel this bond tells you how profound the change was in the prevailing political consensus. people's attitude in the 20's was to let egg business sort of run government. well that obviously changed with the depression. but nothing's permanent. in 1980, is that ronald reagan, who voted four ,imes for fdr as a young man and who never quite accepted that he was reversing the roosevelt revolution, he just said he was as pragmatic as fdr was. but arguably, and as they said, there was a reagan revolution, there was a transformation in our attitudes towards government . to we keep waiting for that
reverse itself. we thought maybe it would happen with barack obama. it hasn't happened yet. with roosevelt it's both what he did and how he did it. he understood that communicating with the electorate, with the population in general, was extremely important. he had a vision but he had to share it with the country and he was able to do it in ways that he could really identify with. he had those fireside chats. but thewas paralyzed, populism, they weren't aware of that. it was extraordinary, one of our presidents who is most challenge physically came across as a very firm personality. that made a world of difference to the american people. could take the
comparison between fdr and bernie sanders question mark what would you make of that? guest: bernie would agree, he loves, absolutely adores fdr. says that he's saying what fdr said, i'm the reincarnation of him. fdr was much shrewder in many ways than bernie sanders. after all, he had been an assistant secretary of the navy in world war i and in many ways ran the navy. secretary daniels was more of a figurehead. fdr was part military policy background early in his career, which sanders has not had. also being a governor of a state like new york is different than vermont. the big thing about fdr, people saying he got out there. he was always visiting. go try the local foodstuffs, fish at a local lake.
to migrant workers, dustbowl farmers, people that were squeaking out a living in the world. he circulated. he traveled a lot, met the american people, always a good thing for an american president to do. don't stay sequestered in the white house. get out there among the voters. host: tom, republican line, colorado. caller: good morning. i was curious to get your guest's thoughts on the changing media landscape and how it their insight and ability to influence the population as we went from print media to radio and tv and how the criterion seems to have changed. the want to take issue with idea that in the 20's it was assumed big business would run the government.
i believe the thought was that the state and local governments were seen as more relevant and less the federal government. at least, my favorite president, calvin coolidge, certainly thought that. i thought that his policies proved helpful. of course, monetary issues leading up to the great depression were, were difficult. yeah, so -- we will take it. dean medford, if you would like to start? american started to believe that the federal government really did have a prominent hand in making people's lives different. before that time there was a great deal of discussion about limited government, with some theicans believing that
government had no role or very little role to play. what with roosevelt, that all changes. that's my perspective on it. remember, the 20's was a reaction to the extraordinary centralization of power world war i. the government exploded in size and authority. it ran the railroads. it ran a draft. it sent 2 million americans overseas. it broke with tradition in a whole series of ways. theafter the war there was red scare, there was the economic crisis. it's not surprising that there was a swing. the pendulum swung away from washington centric to harding, coolidge, hoover. but you know, the hero's in the 20's were big businessmen. or hasord, about whom been written than anyone else here.
and hoover himself, a mining engineer, not a politician. the biggest change to the media, i think -- i mean i grew up at a time when the oval office address was something that everyone talked about the next day at the water cooler. today i don't know if we have water coolers, but we don't have oval office addresses in the sense that the president of either party could have a move theudience and numbers. richard nixon, at the time of the silent majority speech coming goes in -- on to tv in november of 69 and by some polls he moved the numbers 10 or 11 points with one speech. that era is behind us. i guess twitter is taking its place. let me just say, calvin coolidge does pretty well in the polling. he has his fan base. it's not just our caller.
coolidge wrote one of the better autobiographies of any president. but what he didn't do, silent he, they called him, what couldn't do was what fdr could do, use radio to go right up to people with the fireside chats, talking to the american people, he was a media maestro on radio, fdr. and eleanor roosevelt, what an myet, the first lady writing day columns and literally voicing her opinions as she traveled around. she eventually becomes called the first lady of the world and after her husband's death rites the united nations declaration of human rights. her name is synonymous with human rights. a team of president and first lady, franklin and eleanor roosevelt are the gold standard of how much they accomplished together. changeshough technology , and it does shape how
presidents interact with the american people, we should hasmber that the press always been at the center of presidential interactions with the people. in the 19th century, for instance, you had americans reading newspapers because that is where they are getting their information from, from their presidents and from the candidates as well. the papers are very partisan during this time. so people who are interested would have to read two or three or more to really get the full story. grayson, tuscaloosa, alabama. your question or comment? my favorite president's harry truman, but i called to bring up john f. kennedy. it seems to me that kennedy is always judged differently from other people. judged differently about his
sexual habits. i guess he would come close to the bottom today on moral authority, although when he was president everybody thought that he was a model family man. this keeps coming up in different issues. kennedy was certainly part of the beginning of the vietnam or. some people like to say that he butd have fit with -- nobody knows that. recently when people were talking about how awful it was that attorney general barr might be an advocate for the president , well john f. kennedy nominated his own brother, his former campaign manager. yet people don't judge him harshly about those things the way they do other presidents. doing my question is -- people stay on the top 10 -- will he stay on the top 10 or move down in the future? guest: kennedy, it's high where
he's at right now, but it's for reasons. i just finished writing about nasa going to the moon. we had the 50th anniversary of neil armstrong and buzz aldrin for filling kennedy's moonshot ambition. putting his may 25, 1961 challenge to a joint session of congress, going to the moon by the end of the decorate -- decade, bringing and asked not home alive. we did it. kennedy gets credit for that. and listening to his leadership style, from the cuban missile crisis, the fact that at american university he gave one of the great piece speeches and did the limited test ban treaty. nobody could handle the press that of an kennedy. and you get things like the ,eace corps, the green beret the berlin wall crisis were he that great speech. when it comes to oratory and
communications, kennedy was top. but in the end, the killing in presidents grow older, but he will always be the young, gallant president gunned down in his prime. the public has an enduring fascination with him and i think you will always -- you will never be in the bottom rung of presidents. he will always be of not in a great category of the top five, he will be in the top 10 for the foreseeable future. still, thererats, are no such things as carter democrats. there is still currency to jfk. host: we are talking about c-span's latest book, "the presidents." the historians at our table have been contributing to a presidential survey and to this book as well. based on their interviews over the years, they wrote chapters
on the presidents they have written about. showed you, the top five includes abraham lincoln. from our "q&a" program in november of 2008, we had an author that talk about the uncertainty that surrounded the election of abraham lincoln, the man that historians now considered to be america's greatest president. [video clip] got under 40% of the popular vote and of that vote, almost all of it came from the northern states. he won every northern electoral vote, save for the votes of new jersey. he won no electoral votes in the south and in the few southern states where he was on the ballot, because most of the deep south states didn't even give 3% a valid place, he won 2%, , he was the most -- it was the most lopsided victory in american history. moreike bush v gore, even
nerve-racking for lincoln, he wasn't sure that he was actually going to be a -- that there would be a normal succession. he had to actually undergo two more elections. not just the casting of the electoral votes in february that he was uncertain about, but the casting of the state's electoral votes individual state capital. lincoln was worried that some southern states would simply fail to ratify their votes, even know they were for someone else, failed to send the electoral results to washington, were destined to be open by the vice president, a southerner running against lincoln for president. it was not a done deal in november. find more on that harold holder interview if you pick up a copy of "the presidents" and you can learn more if you go to www.c-span.org /thepresidents.
bill, colorado, democratic caller. good morning to you. caller: morning. i would like to comment on lbj. it's fresh these days to raise his status because of the supposedly good things he did in civil rights, but you have to point out that the war he started killed one million or more vietnamese. that's not civil rights, that's just brutality. five -- the bottom five, i don't see how anyone could put nixon anywhere but the very last place in there. host: d medford, would you like to take up those comments? -- dean medford, would you like to take up those comments question mark -- comments? questionout johnson mark i have to disagree. i think he will remain near the top always because of what he did during his presidency in terms of civil rights. kennedy gets a lot of credit for it but it's actually johnson that pushes it through. the vietnam war is a tragedy in american history.
but johnson cannot be blamed for that alone. there are partners in all of this. all presidents have those downsides. i think that in the end we have and, at therything moment, because we care so much about inclusiveness, at least i hope we do, if we do, then we are going to have to acknowledge what johnson did as president in that regard. johnson illustrates, almost better than anyone else, i think you could say nixon or wilson -- there are presidents who have or example great successes. wilson had great legislative in his first term, creating the federal reserve, the federal trade commission, the eight hour day in the workplace. a progressive agenda. but that's not really what we remember him for today. it's his racial animosity, his
reintroduction of segregation into the federal workforce and the fact that at the versailles peace conference, things went terribly awry here at home. indeed, there are people who think that he strangled his baby , the league of nations, in its cradle. how do you rank johnson, a man on the one hand who is lightly lionized for the courageous leadership that he demonstrated. a southerner who, in congress, did not have much of a civil rights record, but who stood there after selma and said -- we shall overcome. and yet the man who really gave us the credibility gap. who really began this long process that i would argue is with us to this day, where people intrinsically suspect the honesty of their government. it really started with johnson
in the unum. how do you weigh those competing legacies shall mark host: let's go to hear -- legacies? to pierre. go republican line, washington. caller: good morning. i'm not a real big history student. most of you people are professors and that and know better, i guess, with bias. i would say that johnson, to an extent, but i'm thinking -- you can tell me, because of what --pened in the vietnam war and i remember a thing called a guns and butter. i don't think that that worked too good. who is the president that resided -- was president when the venereal disease experiments were done on black men? i'll take your answer over the air because my phone is dying. thank you. guest: talking about tuskegee?
guest: syphilis. guest: you want to question mark guest: go ahead -- want to question mark want to? guest: go ahead. johnson, vietnam war, big mistake, wounded warriors that we have to deal with, as the previous caller said. just destroying the nation of the. so johnson is never going to escape that vietnam problem. that is why he is not among these top 10 in the poll. but he has inched up because people are looking at things like medicaid, medicare, creating pbs, npr, clean rivers, combating -- clean air, saving -- creating national lakeshore's in the great lakes or hiking -- national hiking trails.
one can go on and on and look at the legislative compliments of lbj. so in a poll where he gets low , hes in foreign affairs kind of gets back up into the middle when it comes to his relations with congress. he becomes very top because he .as -- he got so much past that is how they rise into that middle. and as we have been intimating, the times matter. johnson has been of this -- beneficiary of robert caro's best-selling biographies. there was a giant play on lbj. president barack obama embraced the lyndon johnson went to austin texas presidential library. rights leaders like john lewis and andrew young are saying that johnson deserves credit for a lot of what he did and he is tied to the story of martin luther king jr., which after all is the only person we have a national holiday for. so it's just right at this
moment in time, johnson's civil rights have moved to the forefront where the trail of tears slaughter of andrew jackson has sent jackson down and woodrow wilson's bigotry has shot him down. it tells us that race has become a much more important issue in a way to how one works as president, even to the point where george washington doesn't get hit as badly for being a slave owner because he freed his slaves upon his death, while jefferson didn't do that. if you go micro in the numbers, you see that jefferson is punished more for slavery than george washington is, even though they were both slaveowners of the era. syphilis terms of the scandal, we need to remember that that is unfolding during several administrations. so it has less to do with individual presidential administrations than it does about how americans in general
looked at african-americans. how much or how little african-americans lives were valued. these men could have been treated once there was a successful treatment available and they were not. it was ok to use them as guinea pigs just to see how their lives unfolded without being treated. so, that's something that is a blot on the american people in general throughout the decades, not just these presidents. -- guest: and ray quickly, look at the different impacts, both public response and scholarly interpretations of the tapes of lyndon johnson and rate -- and richard nixon. as a significant factor in shaping their posthumous , for then, johnson most part, johnson was not a television president.
johnson's autobiography is not that bland book that he put out called the vantage point. it's the tapes. if you want to know lyndon johnson. and for the most part, you know, the reviews have been favorable for his mastery of the political process and for the instincts for the things he wanted to do. on the otheres hand, thus far at least, have had i would argue a very different response, reflecting the different flavor, the different atmosphere of the nixon oval office. a note about the book for our viewers, these surveys by presidential historians look at presidents after they have left office. so this book includes up to president obama. again, you can find this book if you go to www.c-span.org /thepresidents.
all processes go to our nonprofit education foundation. taking a look at where these presidents ranked by historian. number 12, barack obama. george bush comes in at three thirds. at number nine in this survey. marie's, east dublin, georgia. independent. caller: i would be a bit more circumspect and discerning than mr. smith and as much as i would say that fdr was transformational societally and reagan was maybe transformational politically. i would never forget that reagan campaigned in philadelphia, mississippi, asserting states rights, harkening back to the segregationist era in his campaign. to ourectively played better angels. reagan played to our worst
instincts. beyond that, two questions. number one, and i asked this before, why is there not a push to get fdr on mount rushmore? miss green, what do you think about the current situation that is occurring at howard where these individuals moving into the neighborhood are using the yard as a dog park and allowing their dogs to defecate on the art itself and how that plays into the diminution of black people and black culture? harkening back to the teske experiment and how far we haven't come. d medford, do you want to go first? guest: when we are dealing with host: -- host: -- host: dean medford, do you want to go first question mark -- first? thet: when dealing with
community we have a responsibility to communicate what we hold sacred but at the same time the community has the responsibility to respond to what that history is. so, i am hopeful that once we aboutxpressed how we feel the yard, as we call it, being made into a dog park, people will understand that that may not be the ideal place to walk their dog. but i also would like to express what i heard from our president recently. his comment was that we should be equally concerned about what's happening with young people, especially young people of color, especially, in the city who are dying every day. we need to keep in perspective what is happening while there is much concern about our green space. we are very much concerned about
the concerns around the lives of black men and women. guest: if only we could put him on route -- mount rushmore, we could that should put him there fdr is number three in our poll of scholars. a well-deserved top three president. the, mount rushmore, run by parks service, there isn't much more extra chiseling going on. if there was such a thing, franklin roosevelt to be on their areas and there is an argument to be made that fdr is the great american president, with lincoln in washington. wantingiate the caller to do more to memorialize fdr. we did add him to the national mall of a great memorial the walk-through part.
is amorial that walk-through part. don't just go to the jefferson, lincoln, and washington memorials. also, visit his home and presidential library in hyde park, new york. guest: you do want to be careful. the factor of the matter is, drawing these artificial lines, we are still living in the country that franklin roosevelt created. indeed, in terms of federal programs and the like? i don't notice a lot of conservatives sending back their social security checks. thomas, maryland, democratic line. in, your'm interested verification of, but these -- don't take this the wrong way, these white supremacists. black men couldn't vote in so many of these elections.
i don't even understand how that is not even mentioned in any of your reports. and also like -- as we were white supremacists, you can go from george washington and continue on and on and the treatment of black people, even going up to season 60, it was appalling. praising these men when they were only interested in almost like donald trump, a certain segment of white america. they were not interested in all americans. host: ok, thomas. of theone characteristics that we ranked was equal justice for all. we did that because we did understand that that should be one of the central features that determines true extraordinary leadership. so that's why someone like george washington, and other slaveholders, were not ranked
quite as high as they might have been. it's also a reason why some people who may have had issues in other areas are ranked higher , because of that effort to make sure that all americans benefited from the nation's bounty. harold, new jersey, republican line. caller: my question is will the congress ever take the power away from the president to legislate? old veteran of world war ii, infantry division. we had 9000 casualties. also celebrating my 75th wedding anniversary on may 21 with a large family. i feel that the family right now is in danger because we have passed all of these laws to satisfy every need to where we have $22 trillion or whatever it is in debt. my question is -- will the congress ever take back its
power according to article 10? all far succeeded and essentially all of them are dictators. ok, we'll take the point. caller: certainly in the 20th century. in the and 20th century it -- in the 20th century it was largely a administrative office. one of the hot debates was how much power the executive should have and there were debates about three people sharing the executive function, in effect splitting and diminishing the power. the 20th century, though, because of the nature of the events, america almost against its will became a world power, even before world war i. william mckinley is the first president not to go to congress and send 5000 troops to put down the boxer rebellion in china. that is a long time for the
office. the great depression? no one expected the federal government to respond in times of economic distress. this is a part of the boom and bust cycle. certainly by the 1920's and 30's people had a very radically different -- government grew in to 20th century in response popular demand. and of course you had the cold war. so within a few years of the end of world war ii you had the cold war that fed a bipartisan that in effect ,entralized power in washington personalized power in the presidency, and the final fact, television. television made the president more central than any -- you at the time of birmingham, going on tv after george wallace stood at the courthouse door.
or lbj at the time of selma. or ike sending troops to little rock. those are moments that we all remember. man,a lot easier for one the president, whatever his leave that imprint on our collective memory than it is for 535 representatives with wildly differing agendas and interests. 5 i completely -- guest: i completely agree with that. the beginning of the television age, crews used to be sent by cbs to cover martin luther king and people couldn't believe at the time how the civil rights southern leadership conference and the like are just marching. look at bull connor, look at the barking dogs. news of the 1965 helped our country to understand the civil
rights flight. -- 1960's helped our country to understand the civil rights flight. -- plight. king it. he would let cbs was the time and the place and he would put it on television. but the media culture is, unfortunately we now have -- you have to be telegenic. that has been a problem with looking at presidents. kennedy is high because he will always be telegenic. reagan was always telegenic. have presidents like jimmy carter, gerald ford, carter, nixon, who were not naturals on tv and one way or the other they paid for that, that inability to break through the glass, as they say in the .elevision world, politically who can be the maestro of
television? who can draw in the eyeballs? host: richard, verona, democrat, missouri. caller: i have a question and then i want to make a statement. we had one president that wasn't married and we have a gentleman today running for president that is a gay person. and remember, truman was communism. that was the big bugaboo of my generation. giving us medicare, i appreciate that. he reversed the political parties. the southern democrat, it's no longer a southern democrat. priorities took over the old southern democrat party. i believe that all here and let you talk. ?ost: richard norton smith
guest: i do not know about the pete buttigieg campaign, but i don't think they are eager to connect themselves to james buchanan. [laughter] guest: that goes to everyone as well. the other question, not sure, lbj, the civil rights acts. guest: physically johnson said that there goes the south, recognizing that there used to be, when kennedy ran in 1960, it was blue. democratic. around, johnson benefited from that landslide, but by 65, 66, 67, you start seeing the south turning republican, george wallace running an independent party in 68 with richard nixon's silent majority strategy. territory,ce fdr what was once democratic it is republican and johnson
signing that legislation was the major flip. the caller is right on. guest: it works the other way, though, vermont voting for the first time in history for lyndon johnson, democrat. looming -- new england, which used to be particularly republican. it shifts both ways. we are getting to the end of our time. from each of you, tell us what you hope a reader would get out of reading this book. it's not a work of political science, though there are certainly elements of academic interpretation here. this is the old phrase up close and personal. these are some of the best historians in the business, the best writers in the business. the best biographers. their take on these people as people, as well as leaders. guest:
absolutely. the most impressed in reading the final version is that it is so personal. these men with leaders, there's a lot there about their foibles, about their weaknesses, about the struggles with themselves. it makes them so human. and i think that any reard will be able to connect to that in a way that they might not be able to just by looking at the person's leadership style. guest: presidents matter in the united states. we are very geographically diverse country but we all share the same president. i hope people don't just read the f.d.r. or lincoln but some of the lesser known presidents shed light into a particular period in american history like reading about zachary taylor who is underrated in the poll but you get to see why he's not on the bottom or why james k.
polk, many consider one of the most successful first-term presidents and continue following us on c-span. for george herbert walker bush now and he passed and barbara bush died, there is new engagement with the bush 41 legacy and the old style gentleman leeway and break up of the sofe yen union and successfully ran his iraq war in 1991 and apprehended noriega. this came out before the bushes so it will be interesting to see how some of these presidents move in the rankings in our future polling and this is not a scientific poll but as richard said, we have participation from really the finest people we could find that spent their lives studying the institution of the presidency. host: this is the third survey c-span did. we did it in 2000, 2009 and again in 2017. you can learn more about the
surveys. go to c-span.org/thepresidents and also purchase the book there. all the profits goes to c-span's nonprofit education foundation. i want to thank professor brinkley, dean medford, and richard norton smith for the conversation this morning. appreciate it very much. and now we're going to take you to the brookings institution where deputy department undersecretary for policy, david trachtenberg, and security experts are going to be discussing nuclear deterrence. [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]
from david trachtenberg. he'll be talking about the trump administration's nuclear deterrence policy. after that, a panel will discuss the credibility of the u.s. extended deterrent plan called the national posture review, which was released last year. understand the key note speaker is delayed in traffic this morning but they should get under way shortly. also live at noon, we'll continue in the foreign policy theme, looking at sanctions on iran. that's over at the hudson institute. live at noon. mr. rose: good morning and welcome to the brookings institution. my name is frank rose and i am a senior fellow -- sorry. good morning. my name is frank rose and i am a senior fellow here at brookings. thanks for joining us for this morning's program on the future .s