tv Washington Journal 06162019 CSPAN June 16, 2019 7:00am-10:01am EDT
as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" ♪ host: good morning. senate republicans in the white house currently struggling to determine a path forward on a number of key spending and budget issues. also being negotiated, the critical item of raising the debt limit. it is sunday morning, june 16. a very happy father's day. 10 of the democratic presidential candidates are in our nations capital tomorrow for what is being called the poor people's campaign forum. for thebe covering that c-span networks. tuesday, the president officially kicking off his own reelection bid in orlando.
we begin with a new debate in the 2020 campaign and the issue of democratic socialism, something that bernie sanders talked about in his speech at george washington university and in a recent cnn interview. we want to ask you this question , specifically, would you be willing to pay more taxes for free education and health care? here are the numbers. (202) 748-8000 if you say yes. (202) 748-8001 if you say no. you can also join us on social media at c-span wj on twitter --[video clip] twitter.j on we want to get your calls and comments in a minute, but to frame the argument there is this "the new york magazine." "why does bernie so fervently cling to the issue of democratic socialism."
onlye united states is the major country on earth not to guarantee health care to people as a right. in many countries in europe, germany from one, you go to college and the cost of college is zero. i think in finland they actually pay you to go to college. in most countries around the world, the level of income and wealth inequality, which in the united states today is worse than at any time since the 1920's, with three families owning more wealth than the bottom half of america, that level of income inequality is much less than it is right here in the united states. >> as you know, taxes and those countries are much higher than they are in the united states. >> i suspect a lot of people in this country would be delighted to pay more in taxes if they had comprehensive health care as a human right. i live 50 miles away from the canadian border. you go to the doctor anytime you want, you don't take out your
wallet, you have heart surgery, heart transplant, come out of the hospital and it costs you nothing. kids in many countries around the world go to public colleges and universities tuition free. wages in many cases are higher. there is a trade-off, but at the end of the day i think most people would believe they would their kidsff when have educational opportunities without out-of-pocket expenses, when they have health care as a human right. when they have affordable housing, decent retirement security. i think that most americans will understand that is a good deal. let's take a look at the tax rate in two of those scandinavian nations, beginning sweden, where the overall tax rate is at 52% and the average pretax salary for a swede is after taxes $22,410. denmark, the tax rate is 56%,
with the average pretax salary at just over $64,000 per year and the average post-tax salary when everything is said and done, a country of about 5 million, just over $28,000. and then there is this from cnbc, elizabeth warren has been proposing a tax on wealthier americans. survey, mosta americans support a tax on wealth above 50 million, most millionaires do. they wouldaid support raising taxes on that income over $50 million per year. so, tell us what you think. we will begin with jim, first, in grinnell, iowa. you say no, you don't support this idea. why? >> well, i think first of all the government takes more money from taxpayers.
i think the money will still be wasted in a lot of different ways. it might be dispersed to other areas in the government. the united states is the richest country in the world. throughout the years the government has not been able to control its spending, so we are deeply in debt and i think it will continue to go in that spiral. thing is about the students, free education? think maybe they should have to serve in the military for at least two years. give them another different type of education. i work around the college. things that the students should learn besides books. i think the military would be a good option for them.
you know? i think that's fair. whether that would happen, i don't know. i just think that the government wastes so much money and cannot control its spending. so i think it's not a good idea to have free education and health care. host: thank you for making your point, we will stop you there. a short while ago the president was tweeting last night, again taking aim at the media, followingon a program 30 hours with george stephanopoulos in iowa and on air force one, from the white house, the interview aired tonight on the abc network with the president saying last night that anything goes with our corrupt news media today, "they will do or say whatever it takes without even the slightest thought of consequence. these are true cowards and without doubt the enemy of the
."ople specifically attacking "the new york times" for a story about cybersecurity and russia. let's go to len, joining us from woodmere, new york. saying yes you would pay more, delighted to pay more taxes. answer that. first, let me congratulate you for being part of the enemy of the people. that is a distinction in this day and age. host: why do you say we are the enemy of the people? caller: i'm saying donald trump includes you and that. host: i see, ok. caller: not me. [laughter] you know, let's start with insulin. this country is listening to people talking about not being able to afford their insulin. that is because we are not using the buying power of the 300 million people to negotiate
lower the prices of prescription drugs. that's a drug that has been around for a long time. i could probably learn how to produce it and i'm an accountant. aboutople are worried standing in line or something. we have an intergenerational problem, people making very jobs, or not having good we start building the schools to send those people to school and learn how to take care of things in a robotics age. we need to start looking at, you know, taking care of everybody across the board. that is being, you know, stored, imagine all the money that is being held in bank accounts and portfolios being like grain piled on one side of the road so high that you can't see the top. the other side needing to be fed
and these people needing to be able to plan for themselves. this is what unmitigated capitalism produced. all the democratic socialism is is capitalism with guard rails. saying that you can do so much, but then you have to start sharing. because the next generation, people complain about not getting something for not working. how about the children and grandchildren of walmart? i don't think they have to tie their own chill -- tie their own shoes in the morning, they have dollars and maids to take care of everything. host: thank you for the call. this is from jodey making the following point -- in -- host: daniel shaft in
"commentary magazine" wrote about the idea of sweden and democratic socialism. "it is time to reveal the cost of maintaining nordic welfarism in the form of higher taxes for the middle class families that produce america's wealth." host: that is from daniel shaft, at commentary magazine." emily is next, san francisco. you say no to the idea of higher taxes for education and health care. why? caller: yes, i want to preface my comment, as this is my time, is that you were talking about
the russian interference? of 2015, 2016,er hillary clinton said that because she intervened with the put an election in 2013, he wanted to get back to her. she started this whole problem. you can find that in wikipedia under russian interference in the 2016 election. host: stay on the line, this is the other part of the tweet from president trump, since you brought it up, aimed specifically at "the
new york times," "do you believe that the failing new york times just did a report stating that there are increased cyber attacks on russia, an act of treason by a paper so desperate for any story even if it's bad for our country." please go ahead with the idea of democratic socialism, taxes, and your view. that socialismve
is terrible. for the young people, the first thing that they do they will names, get ridir of their guns and see the they are putting the military places where they want because you have given government all the power. senior citizens will not have the medicare that they need because you are going to combine it for everyone in the country. people that don't even work. democrats say they are going to do that. that because you give half of your day at least to the people you work for, they should be paying. there is plenty of money. they should be paying. giving other people the power over each individual as they did in russia, if you don't work, you don't get medical health. i think it's important that young people understand that if
we become socialistic because , which isfree college going to cost trillions of dollars and you know who we owe that money to? china. they gave us money to pay for our country to run and that's dangerous for us. please start to think, giving away the freedoms that we have, the wonderful people that tried to save our and president trump's wonderful message, his speech in europe, told -- telling the people that one of the best speeches -- we are doing very well. if everyone would understand that we are free and i god never sent angels down to earth. politicians are human beings and as he go further into the future, you will find that everything that has been promised to you has changed. host: emily, thank you for the
call from san francisco. this tweet from jeff -- host: so, what is socialism? last -- poll released released last october identified and compared different views of socialism. we will put the numbers on the screen. socialism is equality, 23% said that. back in 1949 only 12% said that. on the issue of government ownership, more control. 17% in 2018, 30 4% in 1949. free social services, 10% in 28 been, 2% in 1949. that is from a gallup survey that was released in october of last year looking at the idea of what is socialism. next up is eric, from erie, pennsylvania, you say yes? caller: i would be fine with it
in america, but it's never going to happen and it's not going to matter for me because i'm moving to europe next year. use -- of variety of reasons, but the economic arrangement of most of the social democracies in europe is far more opportunity filled than what most americans are up against in terms of the cost of their education versus income that they can earn from having gotten it. host: where are you moving, but european country? guest: focused on germany right now, but i remain flexible based on my ability to gain entry and my criteria on being able to do it. i'm not averse to declaring for asylum. my reason would be religious freedom. recognize itsto need for sense -- sensible
policy regarding the pluralism of the religious population. host: thank you for the call from pennsylvania. steve, florida, good morning to you. good morning. thank you for giving me a chance. -- you know, everyone works. i think that there are some people that may have illnesses or you know, mental illness, but basically everybody works. there is really no such thing as getting everything for free. right now there are a lot of people that are working to bring jobs because their health care costs are 20% of their monthly income. with such a sharp, sharp rise from what it used to be. that, you have a $5,000
or $6,000 deductible. we would need to pay into the system a long time before you start to actually seeing health care. and i believe that under bernie sanders' plan we would actually receive health care. thing aboutsay one the press being the enemy of the people, ok? you watch donald trump speak, you hear the words coming out of his mouth. his tweets are altered and just from there you can make a decision as to what he's all know, the things desecrates.uses and anyway, so, thank you for letting me speak. host: thank you, appreciate the
call. inside of "time magazine." unitingng in revolt, against beijing as the demonstrations continue this weekend in hong kong, the former commonwealth from great britain amid concerns about being extradited in hong kong, those who are being charged and extradited into china. joe, joining us from north charleston, south carolina, good morning to you, joe. caller: happy father's day, hope your children have a wonderful day. host: thank you. caller: no, i don't agree with tax increases to support health care and free health care or free education. a couple of things here. one thing i think, high schools, guidance counselors are doing a great disservice to our children by convincing them that everybody needs to go to college. we need to have a different idea among high schools. there is going to be a great
demand for trades coming up in the next 10 years. i'm talking about especially electricians, technology, a lot of that can be handled at the technical school level. here in south carolina we have what is called a life scholarship and if you qualify for the scholarship you can go to school for free as long as you maintain a b average. the lottery helps to pay for that, by the way. everybody doesn't need to go to college. there are very high paying jobs than somehat pay more careers you get from a college education. i'm talking about careers that lead you into a trade that has health care plans and has a good 401(k) plan and people are making six figures pulling wire cable and it's good work. i grew up in the navy shipyard. it's not bad to not go to college. the lady talking about socialism a little while ago, if we end up in a social state, there's going
to be a generation of people down the road that grows up in it and if it fails like venezuela, they won't know how to drag themselves out from it. they will not know how to recover. do go for higher taxes, education and health care and a democrat gets in office -- this should be a bipartisan effort here, at some point they are going to undo the corporations. there's only one way to pay for it. there's nothing free. resultat's done, it will in an increase in goods and services to every american here. , their corporations first deal is they have to answer to their shareholders. they have to maintain a profit margin to stay healthy. you know this, this is the way things are. we will be double taxed. we will have an increase in goods and services and the taxes we have to pay for. again, happy father's day, that's my comments. host: thanks, good to hear from
you again. this from mylan. host: you can send us a tweet at or on wj --@cspanwj facebook, facebook.com/cspan. we welcome our radio listeners on 90.1 fm and serious xm, channel 124, which carries this program every sunday morning. encase you missed it, the debate lineup scheduled for later this nbc and msnbc, two months of debates, 10 presidential candidates, five moderators, this is what it will look like on day one, cory booker, boolean castro, john gabbard,chelsea governor jay inslee, amy klobuchar, better or work, congressman tim ryan, and senator elizabeth warren.
on the second night it will be senator michael bennet, former vice president joe biden, mayor pete to judge, senator, harris , senatorpete buttigieg , and -- kamala harris those debates will be airing on the nbc networks, the first in a series of democratic presidential debates continuing through the summer, cnn in july, abc in september. paul is joining us from sebring, florida, saying no to the idea of higher taxes for free education and health care. why? all, freell, first of , we know that approximately 27% of american in college.ctually however, we want the rest of the people to pay for this education? the is never addressed by local media.
why would all americans pay extra taxes for the free education for individuals that only represent 27% 48% of our as in health care, i'm retired military 28 years. i do get basically free health care and i do agree that americans, that would be a birthright. i have no problem with raising taxes were health care. but on education? 27%,never talk about the 28% again that they want the rest of us to pay for. so, i appreciate you and thank you very much. this past week, senator sanders delivering a speech at george washington university where he outlined his idea of democratic socialism. you can follow all of our coverage on our website, c-span.org and when you see the search at the top of the screen you can type in specifically
what you want, we have more than 200 and 50,000 hours of coverage in the video library. this is from this past week, senator sanders. [video clip] ourselves as part of one nation, one community, and one society regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or country of origin. [applause] this quintessentially american idea is literally emblazoned on our coins. e pluribus unum, from the many, one. and i should tell you, it is enshrined in the motto of our campaign for the presidency, not me us. [applause] let me be clear.
i do understand that i and other progressives will face a massive attacks from those who attempt to use the word socialism is a slur. but i should also tell you that -- i have been overcoming these attacks for decades and i am not the only one. that from senator bernie sanders and his speech at george washington university this past week. this from john smith -- host: you can send us a tweet, @cspanwj. tony, pleasantville, new jersey, good morning. guest: good morning -- caller: good morning, steve. these republicans never cease to amaze me. they always talk about america first and that this would be the best way, the billions of dollars that this government squanders and all of this other nonsense every year, i would rather squander it on the majority of the american people.
here's another thing i want to had thaty quick, you lady call from california talking about having to pay debt to china and this and that? china's business? trump's family, the whole family came out with a thing on the news last week, how much money they made this year and most of the business they do with china. i don't understand how these republicans, they talking out of both sides of they and they mouth. every day you know it's going to come down to these republicans marching straight behind donald trump no matter what he says. i think it's really bad in this country now the way the country has fallen because we have got a criminal in the white house. for the call.u already, how are republicans using the speech by senator bernie sanders? one of the most contested senate races in 2020 is likely to be in alabama, where doug jones is
running for reelection and getblicans are looking to that state back. here is how the national republican senate campaign committee is using the words of bernie sanders against doug jones. >> whatever we do, we will wind up supporting the nominee. we will wind up supporting the nominee. we will wind up supporting the nominee. not going to run away from that. ♪ suspect a lot of people in this country would be delighted to pay more in taxes if they had comprehensive health care is a human right. ♪ that from the nrs see, the senate republican campaign committee. isaac is joining us from washington, good morning. caller: hi, good morning.
it's an honor to speak with you, thank you for c-span. i just want to emphasize that i would be more than happy to pay more in taxes and in point of fact, my wife and i already pay close to $2000 a month for her and my student loans as well as good, care and she has a she is a professor at university, she has a good plan, but with co-pay and all of these other things, $24,000 year is already -- that's basically half, the 50% you were talking about from other countries. i do like a plan that i have heard a couple of times now, the top 1% of the wealthy in this country, if we tax their wealth, not their income, but their wealth by 2%, the stock market rose at 10%, you really slow down the rate of their growth, not taking money away from them, per year.00 million i'm not asking everyone in the country to pay for everyone's college education. i'm asking for the extremely
in $13 million per year to subsidize the rest of our education for 0% student loans so that private companies aren't profiting off of our debt and are sickness. host: isaac, they give for the call. how much student loan debt you have, by the way cushioned -- by the way? 100er: it's close to $50,000. my wife is a professor now, paying it off. that's the thing, education is an investment, right? the entire economy benefits. if i can take one second, i'm 35, i went back to college and we took an education class. people are obsessed about why we pay more for public education with these poor results. pay,ed to look at what we the massive portion goes to teacher health care and retirement. that is the cost that is ballooning and that's why we pay so much more than other
countries and why we are struggling to fund education properly. that it -- this also takes care of that issue. host: thank you for the call. we mentioned this at the top of the program, the budget impasse posing a threat as a looming and theat congress president need to agree on. here are the details from erica warner in "the washington post." senate republicans in the trump administration are struggling to reach agreement on a path forward including a federal default that could hit the economy hard --
host: we will have more from that story in just a moment, but back your phone calls on the issue of paying more in taxes, which you in the words of senator sanders be delighted to pay more taxes for free education and health care? let's go to todd in michigan. good morning, todd. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: raising taxes is what socialism is all about. i know for a fact, ok? innow a lot of people windsor, canada and ontario. every time i go over there, all i hear about is they complain about how high the tax is our and how rotten their health care system is. the one person i talked to said
that if you have to have an mri done, you have to wait two months. if you have to see a specialist you are put into a tiered system. all of the tax money where they tax the hell out of these people isn't doing anything. when i look every week and see how much they wrench out of my check, i don't have a problem with taxes, i have a problem with where the tax money is going and how it's being used. we don't need to raise taxes anymore. baseed to make the tax more efficient and move without the corruption inherently involved in this. todd, thank you for the call. anthony with this point -- host: isaiah, joining us from fayetteville, georgia, go ahead please. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: good. caller: happy father's day to the fathers out there, want to
give the fathers a shout out today. sure, i think we should pay taxes. people want to talk about socialism? this country was built on socialism. you may do people work for 400 and 50 years for free and didn't give them anything. nothing for free, but you got 500 years of free labor from africans, you ain't them no retribution, no anything. that's how this country got started. never forget that, never forget that. so don't nothing comfrey? can the slave masters children's pay the sons and daughters of slaves they money? thank you. host: thank you for the call. this issue that we will be following for the next couple of months, framed in terms of negotiations between house and senate republicans and the president led by mitch mcconnell
, trump and congress facing a trio of difficult budget issues that congress must pass an trump must sign. forcedadline is october -- october 1 to avoid a new shutdown and according to the latest estimates, failure to do so would force the government to make difficult decisions about which obligations to pay and could be considered a default by investors -- in today'sfront page "washington post." alan, thank you for morning, -- waiting, good morning. caller: happy father's day, steve. hope you have a good father's day. host: all the dads out there.
all the uncles and grandfathers -- caller: everyone. i mean everyone. good morning, america. steve, if we really added it all cars,mean we pay taxes on you pay a gas tax, ok? when you go to the store, you pay property taxes. and then you pay taxes on your pay, ok? let's go back to the beginning here, about the lottery. the lottery was supposed to pay. i remember this, this is how we got it passed, it was supposed to pay for schools and roads. well, right now in michigan they want to cut $300 million from the minibus service. there are a lot of disabled and elderly people and i'm going to tell you, i'm one of those people and i had to work two or three jobs to make it. i had to pay taxes out of
everyone of my paychecks. one time i got a check for zero because i was a waitress. it wasn't even worth the paper it was printed on. helen, thank you for the call from michigan. tina is in jacksonville, florida. good morning, tina. you say that yes, you would be willing to pay more? yes, i wouldn't have a problem in paying more in taxes. crisisture is the main that's the bigs theme. it would decrease the things we have to deal with. you would be able to expand certain things. let's take a look at that.
second, taking a look at other who are not in a position like our country that , it'sniversal health care very easy to have universal health care? why can't we? i have no problem with that. children't prepare our to compete with other countries, that's going to put us behind. logically, and you know this is the way i look at it, in the bible, and i will make it very about they basically talk states thatand it ton you are able to give anybody, it says that he who
god.sses the poor angers host: i will leave it there. kevin has been waging patiently from maryland. what's your view on all of this? caller: good morning steve, thank you for c-span. the question really is an oxymoron. if you are paying more for free education and health care, it's not free. host: right. caller: the question actually is whether you want the government to run education and health care to guarantee certain outcomes. host: how would you answer that question, kevin? caller: a couple of points on that question. first of all, from a philosophical perspective, that question was already at rest in the constitution. i mean, the founding fathers education and health
care was, they didn't put it in the constitution. in fact that ben franklin said that those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. point thatts at the this is the really radical proposal relative to our country's history. the second point is the practical outcome of it. other collars have made the point about the quality of health care in other countries that have government controlled health care. the outcomes are worse, you have to wait. also in terms of education, we have people coming from all over the world trying to get educated in the u.s. and they are fleeing where- these countries they have government run education. so, i think that if you look at the practical consequences of
these policies, it is not something we want to implement in the u.s. for thevin, thank you call. richmond, virginia last night for the democratic party annual fundraiser and two presidential candidates were speaking. this is the headline from "the richmond times dispatch." here is part of our coverage with the mayor of south bend, indiana. [video clip] it democrats -- as a democrat from a red state, i believe we need to stand together and demonstrate that there is no place in this country where democrats can't win. not one state and not one commonwealth. [applause] just ask some of the leaders we have met. jennifer carroll for a, danica victoriesle whose
have sent ripples across the country. and one more thing, because i know the primary is not that far in the rearview mirror, but virginia democrats are the party unity that our entire democratic party will need to show in 2020 to win the white house, and i thank you for that. there is a lot of talk about 2020, as you might expect. i'm very glad that we are here to talk about how important 2019 is. our conservative friends spent decades building up majorities in states and local offices. now it is time for democrats to demonstrate that we know that we will never again treat the presidency like it's the only office that matters. [applause] you are here not just to join
the conversation, but to change the conversation. changing the conversation means making it not only about our policies, which are the best policies, but about our values. don't let anybody tell you the values or something to think about only on the conservative side of the aisle. that from mayor pete buttigieg, we carry that live washingtonll be in tomorrow for peoples forum and a reminder on tuesday evening, live coverage from orlando, florida as president trump kicks off his presidential bid. this was from bloomberg news, "trump warns of epic stock market crash if he is not ."elected .ere are some of the details "trump appears to be road testing what he's going to be talking about in the next few
months, including stoking fear of the market meltdown, on fox and friends he said that the u.s. stock market would be 5000 points, 10,000 points higher if the federal reserve had not raised warning fromis "bloomberg news," the president warning of an epic stock market crash if he's not reelected. the president also tweeting that his abc interview
airs tonight, tweeting "i enjoyed my interview with george stephanopoulos on abc, so funny to watch the fake news media try to distort every word. it will air sunday night at eight p.m. and it is called "president trump 30 hours." back to your idea on democratic socialism and paying higher and healthducation care. savannah, georgia. good morning. first of all, i was going to say that as far as the fake news, this president has been one of the biggest people to put out farce -- false information. more so than the media. i don't know why he's talking about that. as far as socialism and the paying higher taxes? elizabeth warren, you have been saying
bernie sanders. being raised on the wealthy, that's one of the differences. it's not going to affect a lot in the wealthy. more than can cover just college education. the one gentleman had a point when he said only 27% would benefit. first of all, even that percentage benefiting is still how and educated society makes it better for everyone. but it could be a trouble -- a cover for the trade schools he was talking about. it doesn't have to be limited to higher education or college. so, we could benefit everyone, not just a certain segment. judy, i'm going to move
on, but thank you for the call from savannah, georgia, a lot of people waiting to get in. robin, go ahead. you say no. why? caller: because i think that first iare doing -- want to say happy father's day to all the fathers and people who fall into that category today. but but i think we need to look at as far as health care, i want to spend a few minutes there. we are not really looking at the issue. good deeper and look andhe cost of health care what the insurance companies and drug companies are doing, they are pretty much in collaboration with each other, setting their own prices. cvs and they got like walmart with pharmacies in their stores, they are all gathering together and making up their own
prices. we would be up in arms if we were spending $20 on a gallon of milk. everyone would be up in arms. that is kind of what our health care is. the costs keep going up. i realize that for medical research and things like that, it is going to cost a lot more, doot of money, some drugs cost a lot of money, but if you like there might be a bit of a monopoly there. and then when drug companies and insurance companies donate to both democrats and republicans, theyoliticians feel like can't do anything because their election campaigns are being run by these races. if we focus on that and try to fix that it might be better.
out in los angeles, and cause takes a look at the issue of the citizenship question. richard is next from alliance, nebraska. good morning. i'm behind medicare for all, it's a good idea. they can become entrepreneurs. president is up early this morning and tweeting again on the engagement of a fox news host. the president was in iowa last week and he made mention of higher taxes, socialism, and the example of venezuela.
[video clip] collects you better get out and vote. your businesses will be taken away, york taxes will be for twofold. you had better get out and vote. we have never done better and it's really easy as a socialist to say that when you are doing well, let's do this cap do we are going to take this, give you free this. nothing is free. you are paying for it, other people are paying for it. they will destroy this country. we will be another venezuela. wealthyntry was really 15 years ago. they have destroyed the country. i look at it every day. we are studying venezuela. what happened in that country is beyond belief. truly wealthy country. they don't have water, they don't have food, they don't have hospitals. it's incredible. don't let it happen to us. host: that from the president in
iowa bank -- in iowa last week. following his speech we will open it the phone lines to get your reaction. caller: i spoke -- this from mark -- bluefield, west virginia, good morning to you. good morning, i don't know if i was majority of americans but for me the thernment is on civil with moneys, the tax money that they are getting all ready -- already. i have heard comments even from government officials that billions were paid out in fraudulent social security claims. but nothing is ever done about it. to me like i said, the majority of americans would like the responsible for
the tax money they are getting already. and then you know if it comes to that, yeah, you may have to raise taxes, but i think they should be responsible for the tax money that they are getting, then we wouldn't have a lot of these problems. thank you for the call. "23%from the gallup poll, in the u.s. understand that socialism refers to subs -- some form of a quality. governmentt means controlled the economy and in defined it as government control of business. randy is next from wisconsin. good morning. i might have a solution here for these higher taxes, and i would, if.
every student that gets out of high school goes to two years of military service. you learn how to get up in the morning, you learn respect for this government and the united states and you get the basics. there with two years of service and four years of free college. from being in the service you get the g.i. bill. your medical is covered for the rest of your life. kids will know what they want to do. i think it would be a great way to give back to what made the great generation. that is how it started. host: randy, think you for the call. good morning, joan. are all doingou well. i'm a 64-year-old woman from virginia. my family is raised. i'm a blue-collar worker. oath of my children are white-collar workers. my grandchildren are slated to .e white-collar workers
we have paid for our education ourselves. no government health anywhere. there is a way, if you are willing to work hard for it. there are no free lunches. our government has wasted money already. and i do not believe that government should either pocketbooks. host: carol, thank you for the call. the center on government budget priorities taking a look at tax dollar goes. 24% of the budget, 940 $5 billion being paid to social security. that's followed by medicare, medicaid, the chip program and the affordable care act, followed by defense, $611 billion. safety net programs are about 9%, including the child tax
credit and the earned income child credit. back to your phone calls from oak hill, west virginia. your view on this? good morning. no because voting services like dialysis for patients, hip replacement, heart catheterization, are very limited. him other things, between medicare, medicaid, and private insurance do pay for them, they would be limited to us. procedures.pensive good morning, brian. i have spoken with many
people from canada and none of them come across the border for our health care. if it's an emergency, they moved to the front of the line. but if it is something that can wait, none of them would trade what they have for what we have. that is on the medical. the fact that we pay more than any other country and we still have the worst health care should tell you something. everyone keeps talking about the taxes, but we are not doing what other countries do. we cannot get our health care. we don't know the cost. we can't get medicine down. we pay way more and our own conscious -- congress has said they would not negotiate to get a lower price. education? of course. if we are already paying for 12 years of public school, what's the difference in adding four more years? the: brian, thank you for
call. four in 10 americans embracing some form of socialism. more from senator bernie sanders last week in washington. [video clip] >> today, the right to form a union, the minimum wage protection for fathers, massive infrastructure improvements are considered pillars of american society. thewhile he stood up for working families of our country, we can never forget that president roosevelt was reviled by the oligarchs of his time. who be these extremely popular programs as socialism. similarly, when lyndon johnson brought about etiquette, medicaid, and other extremely
popular programs, he was also viciously attacked by the ruling class of this country. here is the point, it is no exaggeration to state not only did the fdr agenda improve the lives of millions of americans, but the new deal was enormously helped politically and to defeat far right extremists. host: bernie sanders saying that americans would be delighted to pay more taxes for socialist policies. naples, florida, good morning. i just wanted to comment on the other comments that came through this morning. the reality is that we have worse outcomes here in the united states.
we don't earn more than other westernized countries, so that's debunked. in terms of being up in arms in everyone thates, lives in canada is satisfied with their health coverage. had anw, if someone has emergency, than they are seen right away. i think it is more a matter of, with that caller, it's a matter of access. it's not about eating able to call today to schedule a knee replacement for tomorrow. to make sure everyone, no matter how poor you are or wealthy you are, that everyone has access to at least
basic health care. host:host: thank you. there is from virginia who says, the government does not know how to handle money. we need more privatized schools and less public because our children are not getting the education they deserve, too much politics, trump 2020. on the issue of paying more for socialist policies including health care and education. coming up, cap he sang will be will beus -- kathy sang joining us. we discussed the legal battle over the citizen ship question. on the 20 -- the citizenship question on the 2020 census. program andsmakers democratic congressman john yarmuth of kentucky is the chair of the house budget committee and among the questions, whether or not he is interested in challenging senator mitch
mcconnell, who is up for reelection next year in kentucky. here's a portion of the conversation. [video clip] >> i have no plans to run for the senate. but i would love to see -- i think we've got two potentially really excellent candidates. the one whom a lot of people know around the country is amy mcgrath, the former air force pilot who ran for a congressional seat last year and barely lost to andy barr. she developed a great following in kentucky. a great political operation as well as a national following. she is looking at the race seriously. i believe she is going to make the race. there's a guy named matt jones who has a statewide following. . sports radio talkshow conservative republican listeners who i think would vote for him. i think amy is probably the
first target of the d fcc. they have talked to her, i have talked to her. she is totally dedicated to public service. if she runs, it will be the o'rourke, cruz race. the nation will be focused on that contest. host: congressman john yarmuth is our guest on newsmakers program. chair of the budget committee and a reminder, you can watch it at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span television also anytime on the free c-span radio app. joining us from los angeles is kathy fang -- kathay feng. thanks for being with us. guest:guest: good morning, steve. host: let me begin with the issue of the citizenship question in the u.s. census. what is the controversy and why? now, ther 70 years u.s. census bureau has created a
short form and given it to every single american. it is called a short form because it is focused on the key questions they need everybody to answer. the goal is to get 100% response on that census form so they make it as simple as possible. the controversy is all of a sudden there has been this real push to try to add a question on citizenship. are you a citizen of the united states. and there's been no testing. it's gone against all of the advice of internal staff who found that if you add this question it could potentially leave out 6.5 million americans. in thatchallenge is, rush, there's a real question about what the real motivation is for trying to add that question when no testing has been done and all of the study show it could really cause the entire census to be jeopardized
because of the drop-off of the number of people responding. host: based on that react to what republican jim jordan said, the ranking member of the house oversight committee. when this issue came up during a recent hearing. [video clip] >> actually asks says this, is this person a citizen of the united states. the answers you can choose from the following, yes born in the united states, yes born in puerto rico, guam, u.s. virgin , yes a, yes, born abroad u.s. citizen i natura naturalization or not a citizen. the question does not ask if you are not a citizen are you in this country legally. i strongly support asking if a person is in this country legally i'm satisfied the public policy goal of enforcing the voting rights act can be
accomplished with just the citizenship question. the citizenship question is not new. it appeared on previous questionnaires and is asked every year. the majority does not object to the -- but understand the majority's objection to the question now. it is the exact same question on both forms. my colleagues complain the question has not been tested because it was added at the last minute. this argument is false read the question has gone through rigorous testing over more than a dozen years as it has appeared on the american community survey. the american community survey requires a rigorous testing for this question than the question would have received in 2018 census tests. host: that from jim jordan. -- kathay feng joining us. your reaction. guest:guest: i think the statement by the congressman
ignores the fact that the reason why it's on the american community survey, which is done as a sample of a smaller number of americans that happens each year and not on the census that goes out to every single american probably next time we will be seeing it is in 2020. it's because we know that there is a huge drop-off when people see that question. that is not because -- the challenge is, each time we have a census, when we are trying to implement it, the number one ensure 100% response. if it question is added onto the census that will happen in 2020, the key is that we make sure any wording of that as it's understood by a recipient whether translated into multiple languages, how it's going to be understood, has to be tested multiple times.
in the past when there's a question about ethnicity it was tested more than three times in the field and multiple times in pretest before that. we have never done that kind of test on the citizenship question , putting it onto the main part of the main -- the main part of the census we are going to get in 20. the will question is what will the drop-off be. we know from the acs response one of the reasons is put onto the smaller sample that happens each year is because the response tends to be much smaller and we know that there's drop-offs. soon as people see that question they will skip it for not respond to that american community survey. given that drop-off the census bureau's own staff recommended that a citizenship question not be added onto the 2020 census. they knew that some 6.5 million people would not respond to the
census if that question was placed on it. and we have not tested whether people will understand it the same way. when you translate the word citizenship or citizen into multiple languages we have already learned from other contexts that people understand that were differently and when you have to try to explain and, it becomes something where you have to figure out what the right words are. it is not as simple as throwing a question on just because it's been on a smaller survey. this unproven question that folks are trying to rush to place onto the 2020 census is really something where we have to ask what the real motives are. host: let me go back and put it on the screen. five choices including born in the united states or the virgin islands or u.s. territories. born of parents who are u.s. citizens but born abroad. citizenship by naturalization or not a u.s. citizen. are any of these categories
confusing to the person filling it out? daresay if you ask most americans whether they were naturalized or not that would be a head scratcher. that's not a term you use in regular parlance. it is a legal term. if you've been going through the process of becoming an american citizen, there are multiple steps to doing that. and when you start translating that into multiple languages, understanding where you are in that state, you are legally here but you have to cross several hurdles, can become located. and being able to answer that question with full knowledge that you are answering it correctly is not as easy as it seems. host: are gassed is kathay and we will get to -- i guess is kathay feng. i want to what alexandria casio ocasio cortez had to say
in that hearing. [video clip] > unspeakable horrors have been executed in the name of citizenship, determining who is a citizen, and by citizen we mean who is a person in our democracy. that is what citizenship means. it's an acknowledgment of personhood in american democracy. an acknowledgment of power. and when i think about supreme court decisions, i think about dred scott. i think about korematsu versus the united states where the supreme court upheld japanese internment regardless of the citizenship status of japanese americans. it started with the united states census. the united states census. we have laws on the books saying that information from the census cannot be used in any other way. that it must be confidential.
what happens when the federal government, the executive branch, the president of the united states, i don't care if he was a democrat or republican, it was wrong. he asked for information and the census bureau broke the law and die bulged information on zip codes where japanese americans were concentrated and that information was used to intern american citizens and non-american citizens alike and the supreme court upheld that. host: the house oversight committee on the issue of the citizenship question. we are dividing phone lines. if you support the idea of the -- the 20 a 20 20 census, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. kathay feng is joining us. we will go to jeff in eden north carolina. caller: good morning.
i support the citizenship question. it is part of how we keep been ofy of who -- keep inventory who is here in our country. we are a representative republic required toates are know who is voting and to determine if you are allowed to vote. if we just allow any and everybody to vote what we will end up with is a state like california. and nobody in his country wants all the states to reflect the problems of california. where theyxample of just have open borders. elected officials are elected by those citizens. look at the problems. will get a response from kathay feng. guest: i'm going to say that i
think this caller probably gets at what the real motivation is for trying to add the should -- add this citizenship question. in the process we have uncovered some evidence and that evidence has been introduced into other cases. one in new york and one in maryland, where studies were done by people who are central to the redistricting process. particularly drawing maps for republicans and the conclusion by the chief mapmaker for republicans named thomas hossler, was that if they could move to drawing district lines using citizen only data that they would have -- it would be advantageous to republicans and non-hispanic whites. he went on to say that if he could pick and choose all of the precincts using that citizen only data that you could dilute
the votes of latinos and harm democrats and that you could give an advantage to republicans and whites. that the extent motivation for trying to add the citizenship question onto the census form is really just a ploy by partisans to try to manipulate the census as well as redistricting lines and ultimately our election outcomes. that's not something that is american. our constitution started from the premise that we count each person, all americans, in the census. our constitution starts from the presumption that the apportionment of seats for the house of representatives is based on a total population and not a citizens only rule. even though people may feel very angry about immigrants and they might hate california and the diversity that we have, the reality is our country has been
built on a larger and inclusive view of what it is to be american. host: a lot of comments on our twitter page. follow us at c-span wj. one from modern democrat. there was a citizenship question on the census until obama and democrats removed it in 2010 to protect the illegals they represent. democrats probably have a five to seven seats in the house of representatives due to illegals in this country. carol has this tweet. we have a right to know who's in our country and whether they are here legally or illegally. have laws and they should be
followed or punished when not followed. the census is created to do two things. one is to count every single american. that is written by our founding fathers in the constitution. part of that reason was because they wanted to make sure each state had its fair share of seats allocated in the house of representatives based on the total population. not looking at who is not allowed to vote because at that time women were not allowed to vote.
non-property owners were not allowed to vote. blacks were not allowed to vote. but they were counting everybody because apportionment of the house of representatives is based on total population. i get that there are a lot of they cano might feel express anti-immigrant sentiments and that has been riled up by the current administration but the constitution says what it says in the founding fathers knew that they could have limited the number of people who were responding to the senses or who would be used for purposes of free apportionment of our house of representatives. they chose to indicate it should be all americans. total counts. by extension of that, our congressional seats, the way they are redistricted, is also based on total count. part of that is because as people come to age, when they turn 18, you still want to count that population because you need to know who is in the pool of
people a representative needs to take care of. you are not going to allocate money to a state less because they have a lot of people who are under the age of 18. potentially you need that money to build schools. roads are still going to be driven on by people regardless of what their status is. regardless of whether they are under 18 or a citizen. we will be using a lot of services that the government provides. so it's important for funding allocation and termination of our share of seats in the house of representatives that every person in the u.s. is counted. host: more tweets with a definition of census from one viewer saying it is a noun, an official count or survey of a population. the definition calls for all people be counted not just citizens. citizenship is irrelevant. sayingom another viewer -- shifts power to other states
placing this question back on the senses reveals the extent to which your state is gaming the constitution. this from the commerce secretary wilbur ross who is overseeing the 2020 census. he recently stated "while there is widespread relief among many parties that adding a session sip question -- i citizenship question could reduce response rates -- empirical support for that belief. your response? it is just a false statement. the census bureau has studies that were presented to them both coming from internal staff and also from outside that said there was going to be a significant drop off. when we are talking about not just a few hundred thousand but several million, you have to wonder about what the motives are for adding the question. we have recent evidence that has been introduced into court on friday that there were communications between high
level census bureau staff. chief of staff for the census director. communicating with this republican strategist who had laid out a plan for how you could do redistricting in a way that would be advantageous for republicans and whites, saying the only way to do that was to add a citizenship question to the census form. and having a direct communication between thomas hossler and the chief of staff, krista jones. krista jones writing to hossler to say we are starting to do some testing. in 2015. maybe you want to mention this citizenship question. that is clearly an effort there is intent to put a finger andhe scale of census ultimately redistricting so that instead of it being even and balanced and reflecting every american in this country that instead they want to skew those
results and skew the outcome of the redistricting process. it is concerning that people think the citizenship question used to be on the census form forever. it's not true. since the 1960's it has not been on any of the decennial censuses and it has not been asked of every single american. really we have got a body of 1960's, that, since the the census bureau decided they needed to trim the census down in order to make sure we were going to get to 100% response. one of the things they did, they began scientific testing to figure out which question should stay on and which should go off. this is something that has been a long practice of the census bureau. to try to make sure that the questions that do finally get on are ones that will not cause millions of americans and not respond or to be erased from the census. in their decision and all those
years previous, not just in obama's years but in bushes years, reagan's years, you go all the way back the census bureau decided the right thing to do is to have a limited number of questions. all these additional questions where you ask about a lot of different specific questions, sometimes it is occupation and what are you doing in your household. are there citizens and wanting to know all the details. that comes in a different form because they're doing it in small samples. they know that people sometimes get tired of answering all those questions so they don't respond. in the decennial census, the thing that will happen in 2020, it's a small number of questions because they are shooting for 100%. the attempt to try to add a citizenship question is really politically motivated and we are seeing that connection between the census bureau and certain key politically appointed staff
to people who are part of operatives on the outside is really the thread that's telling ployis is a wrongheaded and one that if we succumb to we will jeopardize the census. host: our guest is kathay feng talking about the issue of the citizenship question in the 2020 census, joining us from los angeles with common cause, also a key player in california's redistricting effort. weekly podcast is available on the c-span app. a lot of comments on this saying we need to know how many illegals are in the country. let's go to jim from dumb freeze, virginia. your view on all of this. caller: good morning. i think it is really interesting that your guest is spending time questioning the motives of people who want to put this on. perhaps we should question the motives of people fighting to keep this question off.
of -- theyhe issue are technically nonpartisan -- i work for a technically nonpartisan organization as well but the claimant nonpartisanship , her history is fairly good. the question of the census was to count people, except for the african-americans held in bondage. we amended that out. now the census has mutated into something where we use it to decide how we distribute federal goodies. the claimant was intended by the founders is dishonest. the census was intended to count bodies. if you have questions about other things you are exceeding that purpose. a common cause does not seem to have a problem with that. they warned against gerrymandering when democrats did it now republicans have gotten good at it.
gerrymandering. we are opposed to the gerrymandering that democratsino happens that the manipulation being attempted is going from the census bureau all the way to a republican strategist. had it been a democratic strategist we would have called them for it. host: do you expect the supreme court to weigh in? other organizations have brought a case including one that is now
before the supreme court awaiting a decision in june that aclu has brought out of district court of new york. has a requesturt to remand to the lower court because of this new evidence about the potential racial and political motivations behind trying to add the citizenship question has surfaced. part of that is because thomas hossler, who was this republican hossler, who was this republican strategist for the gop it was only then that we were able to uncover the true motivation for a number of things not only redistricting but also why that citizenship
question was being pushed so hard by a few people to be added to the census form. we are seeing whether or not the supreme court decides it is ready to allow additional discovery to be done so they can look at this and whether or not the census question -- the citizenship question should be added to the census. cases and in each of those instances all three of the lower courts have found the citizenship question should not be added to the census because they did not follow the right process. they did not do any kind of testing. -- for all ofe those reasons they could not -- courts could not in good conscience recommend this citizenship question be added. we now have evidence of
intentional discrimination so the courts will have to wade through that evidence and make a decision based on that. host: this is from kevin. the citizenship question is being used as a cost-effective way for the trump administration to hunt those who feel they are illegal. very gestapo-like tactic. morning.virginia, good are you with us? we will go to robert in wilmington, north carolina. caller: good morning. whyst want to understand the social security number can't .e used as a citizenship count why do we need it on this form? can you answer that? guest: i will say i'm not an expert on social security numbers and how they can be used. i know there are limited uses.
there's a number of ways to determine who is a citizen and who is not. you don't need the census form to do that. so to the extent that we are trying to figure out eligibility where people are in the process of becoming citizens, there are other government databases you can use that for. the reality is, the census is really to get a headcount and in doing so you really want to have a limited number of questions so you can have as big of a count as possible. experience a situation where you get a form and you start to fill it out and you realize there's is a page 2. i really don't want to fill this thing out and you start to waiver as it gets longer and longer. we know this from intuition but also from studies, when you keep a form short, if you don't try to add too many questions to it, you're more likely to have a full response 100% from all the
people. that's the ultimate goal of the census in 2020, to make sure everybody responds. why don't we use other databases to get at questions if people are so interested in citizenship? there are a number of other government databases where we can get that in an accurate way. host: roddick has this point on twitter. the census form should be in english only. do you want to weigh in on that? guest: i will say this. i have family members who came to the u.s. legally. some of them came when they were a little older and they have learned how to speak english in a passable way. i have actually practiced with them so they could understand how to order coffee or how to go to the store and buy a halloween costume but the reality is to be
able to answer the census question you want to answer it accurately. whof you don't have a niece can sit next to you and translate, being able to see it in another language ensures that as you are trying to get through all of those questions that you are answering them accurately. we want to make sure the responses are accurate and that people understand what they are being asked. host: we will go to steve and cape girardeau, missouri. good morning. i'm opposed to adding it. almost every question on there. there should be one question, how many people live in this household. just to add some accuracy to the ocasioion, congresswoman had -- the zip
code system did not begin until 1963. that's all i've got to say. thank you very much. host: dennis in south portland, maine. good morning. caller: good morning. i've heard you mention a couple americans.e term to me in american is either someone who is born in this country or someone who becomes naturalized. and i'm sure that is how most american feel. what would your description of the term american? guest: i would describe members of my family who have come to this country at different times. some of my family members have been here for multiple generations. other family members have come here more recently. many of them have come and over time gotten into the process of
becoming an american citizen. i will tell you that line can sometimes be very long. so even as they are in that process, they are americans because they have no intent of going back to another country. they work here, they study here, they pay their taxes here. i would say people who have signed up for the american dream are americans. host: is the census and your work on redistricting related? guest: that is interesting. this,ally started on really thinking about the redistricting process. , would have said these things one is connected to the other in the sense that the numbers the census ultimately collects on where people live. ideally you would have one question which is how many people live in your household. and that number is ultimately
state'sapportion each share of seats in the house of representatives as well as to ultimately redistrict in each state all the way down to your county level, city level, many city councils will use census numbers to figure out if you got districts, how many people are in those districts so that you can understand and draw the lines to make each district equal in number of people. what's interesting is, that is usually how we see redistricting connected to census. you get a good accurate count of people and you can use those numbers to apportion people and draw the lines. is this been surprising plot we have been uncovering to try to manipulate redistricting, we thought that was all about redistricting. we now understand that as a plot that goes all the way down to
thinking about how to manipulate census so that the numbers, once they are rigged, can be brought into the redistricting process. clear in was made very a study that was done in 2015 by thomas hoffler. he goes through an extensive detail. people can look at common /hoffler. he is pretty unashamed about saying he knows there is a one person one vote standard that the supreme court would abide by. he knows based on that standard it would be a radical departure to move to a citizen only based redistricting. he knows the supreme court would be unlikely to overturn that long precedent, unless they
could make a change. and the change would be to add a citizenship question to the census form. he knows if you could change that, change redistricting so that it was based on citizens only, that it would be, in his tods, "advantageous republicans and non-hispanic whites." he said if you could use redistrict youo could dilute the votes of latinos and pack all the rest of the democrats into as few districts as possible. so this strategy he laid out in was was honest because he writing the study for a republican mega donor. but also, chilling to see the lengths that a group of people would go to to gain partisan advantage on the election sphere
. to try to infiltrate into something that everybody treats as fundamentally nonpartisan, the census form. we want that census form to be asked of every single person who is here in the u.s. without a finger on the scale from one side or the other. host: another five minutes or so left with our guest talking about the issue of the citizenship question in the 2020 census and we go to james who has been waiting from florida. caller: good morning. i support putting the citizenship question on their because that affects my representation in congress. i served 31 years in the air force and i am working for a company with nasa and i want that on their because illegals are not entitled to vote not even entitled to be in our country. therefore we may need to know how many people are here that we definitely need to know if they are citizens or not because that affects my political opinions
and my representation. host: let's get your reaction. .atrick joining us you pose the question. -- you oppose the question. caller: going back into history one side of my family came from ireland and the other side came from germany. i can see where they all participated in the census and none of them were citizens. had -- we are in a bit of a quagmire right now but they were in a quagmire back when they were in the late mid-1800s. host: two different points of view. kathay feng, what is your summary or thoughts? guest: i think the history of america is that we have counted all americans who reside here for the census. precisely because of your caller from ohio's observation.
that most of us, other than people who are native americans, came to the u.s. at some point through a process of coming from another place. that process of becoming a citizen does not mean you are any less american. it sometimes takes time and a lot of our populations whether you are irish back then or asian american now or latino, you can face some serious hurdles. some of that is discriminatory and some of that is just -- that does not make you any less american. it does not mean we should not be counting you for the census. i will say tear caller in florida that if you don't count every single american florida is likely to lose seats in congress . so you want to make sure we are reflecting every person who lives here, because ultimately those people who become full-fledged participating members of american society as voters are not, are people who
we need to take care of. this is a country that is inclusive. the statue of liberty reminds us we are a country that welcomes people to our shores and we want to count every one of them in the census. host: what is the next step? guest: that the supreme court is looking at whether or not they will be making a decision sometime in june on whether the citizenship questions should be placed on the census form. we want to make sure one way or the other that americans understand the importance of the census. that they are responding. not intimidated by the addition of questions that are untested. but also that we educate people. our country cannot stand if we continually try to draw lines about who belongs and who does not and we throw hate at each other. we got to live with each other one way or the other. sometimes you have to sit at the
thanksgiving dinner with the owned or uncle you can't stand or the niece who's driving you nuts. but that is our family. it is messy. we have to figure it out together. host: kathay feng joining us from los angeles. her work available at common cause.org. thank you for being with us. when we come back we turn our attention to dads on this father's day. joining us from virginia is bradford wilcox, national marriage project director at the university of virginia also a senior fellow at the institute for family studies. he's in charlottesville on this sunday morning. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> most of us men we think of winston churchill, we think the older man sending young men into war. but no one knew better and few knew as well the realities of war. the terror and devastation.
he said to his mother after his second war, the raw comes through. he absolutely knew the disaster that war was. >> tonight on q and a, candace malala talks the early military career of winston churchill. >> he says give me a regiment. i want to go and i want to fight. he ends up going with a regiment to pretoria on the day it fell to the british and he takes over the prison and he frees the men who had been his fellow prisoners. puts in the prison's former jailers and watches as the flag is torn down and the union jack is hoisted in its place. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a.
i look forward to running against them. >> president donald trump holds a rally in orlando, florida officially launching his run for a second term. watch live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two, online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> washington journal continues. host: on this father's day we are joined by brad wilcox in charlottesville, virginia. director of the national marriage project. also a senior fellow at the institute for family studies. appreciate you being with us. >> good to be here this morning host: host:. let's begin with the project. guest:guest: what is it? it does two things. one is mapping out the health of marriage and family life in the u.s. and the second is trying to understand how strong and stable families benefit children. piece with this
fact, that over a quarter of children do not live with their father. slain the significance of that. aest: kids can thrive in variety of situations. i was raised by a single mom. i think i turned out pretty ok in most respects. i'm also a social scientist. i can tell you kids are more likely to thrive when they have their father in the household on a day in day out basis. it is important to recognize those kids living apart from their fathers are more likely to struggle when it comes to things like school and host: host: other outcomes. one of the findings from pew research is that more dads are stay-at-home dads. is this more of a generational thing? guest: we have seen an uptick in the share of dads who are stay-at-home dads. it is still the case that moms are about 24 times more likely to be the stay-at-home parent compared to fathers. we have seen a modest uptick in dads being home with their kids and that is one indication of
the way in which fatherhood is changing in america today. host: so is there a way that you think washington, the federal government in terms of public policy, needs to put policies in place that prioritize fatherhood? what is not being done guest: guest: that should be? we actually are doing things -- guest: we actually are doing things, promoting the importance of dads. i think we should continue to do that kind of thing with public dollars. we are also supporting at a modest level what are called healthy fatherhood programs. these programs have been shown to have modest impacts when it comes to improving the quality of fathering particularly for low income dads who are nonresidential. also improving their access and the stability of their work. making them better workers. which then allows them to be more supportive i naturally to their children. these are two things i think are helpful. but in terms of connecting
marriage and fatherhood more closely together, one thing we could make real progress on and really have not is to stop penalizing marriage and many of our means tested programs and policies. things like medicaid and food stamps. these marriage penalties tend to discourage lower income couples from getting married. often brings instability where couples are not getting married, they are cohabiting and that often ends up in a breakup where the kids are not living with their fathers longer-term. i think one key task for the federal government is to stop penalizing marriage. separatingare not families among working-class and poor americans. host: with a record number of democrats running for the white house there's also a record number of ads running for the white house. a piece this morning trying to show they can be president and a good dad.
the challenges pointing out that men on the campaign trail are facing a challenge long familiar to women, how to balance politics and parenting. what advice would you give these gentlemen? guest: i think it's important for these dads to have a clear sense that there are some parts of the week that are just protected for their families and their kids. evenings.of set aside maybe it's not the saturday or sunday because of the campaign schedule. on monday or tuesday. therefore their kids and their wives to be with them and be a real presence physically and emotionally to their kids and their spouse. host: i want to share a moment from the house ways and means committee and the comments of one dad, samuel gonzales. let's listen to what he had to say. [video clip] >> growing up as the baby of seven, i knew my parents loved
us. my father was always on the road. working. always they were only able to provide so much in terms of relationship with us kids. i knew if i were to ever become a husband like i am now, a father, i wanted to do things differently. i did not exactly know how to do that. it isnot think of this difficult for everyone to admit when they are struggling in their relationships. forink it is harder for men
taking responsibility for themselves as fathers. at least that's how i see it. you may know you need help but it is hard to feel safe enough to let your guard down and trust that you will find support and nonjudgment. i was happy by the idea. i did not know there was a place that helps dads learn about parenting and how to have a better relationship. i could not believe that getting the help i needed would be free, which was important because i did not have a lot of money to pay for it. host: that is from samuel gonzales the house and ways that house ways and means committee. participating in the true dads program. what did you hear there? guest: i heard a story of a man who i think like many men today grew up in a situation where he was not always exposed to the and of active and engaged
emotional fathering we are more likely to expect today in 2019 but he's trying to forge his own path with his kids to be that kind of dad. and it sounds like he is benefiting from the council and the encouragement and the advice of this program in oklahoma that is sort of giving him some skills, some insight and some inspiration to make the changes to take the steps he needs to take to be the kind of dad he wants to be for his children. host: the role of fathers in society. our guest is brad wilcox joining us from charlottesville, virginia and we are dividing phone lines a little differently. if you are a father or grandfather give us a call at (202) 748-8000. .or all others, (202) 748-8001 for all others, (202) 748-8001.
guest:guest: one of the interesting things i'm finding in my work when it comes to marriage and family life generally, in some ways there are two different models of marriage and family life in the states. one is a clearly blue model, more progressive model where both parties, the husband and wife, are aiming for a more 50-50 model of marriage and family life and it looks like when they are intentional about that those are pretty successful marriages. those dads are really engaged with their kids. we also see across the spectrum ideologically speaking that religiously conservative households also have very involved fathers and wives who are happy with that kind of arrangement. i think part of the lesson here is they have a clear understanding of family life. another lesson in this work is in their own distinct ways the clearly blue model on the left
and the religiously conservative model on the right, both demand a lot and expect a lot of men as fathers. that's one reason why it turns out the wives in these distinctive marriages on the tend to be more happy with their marriage and their husbands than a lot of women in the allied dealt -- in the ideological middle. clear expectations for -- both clear have expectations for the role of the father and expect a host:.m him your children age in range from 19 to five. guest: we have five girls and four boys in our family. it's a big family. host: that is a big family. ron joining us from elizabeth, indiana. good morning. caller: i wanted to mention many years ago i was married and we had two children and the support families,r low income
like food stamps and medical assistance and stuff like that, nutrition assistance, those programs are designed to convince married mothers to separate from their husband in order to get more assistance. when i wound up going to court for a divorce because she insisted on leaving because she would get more assistance if i weren't in the house. when i requested that the court do anything to help me keep my family together, like provide some counseling for us or help us to work out our differences so that we could stay together as a family, the court simply ignored my plea and granted my wife the divorce. how come the system can be set ,p to keep families together rather than promoting separation and divorce? host: thank you. i appreciate it. guest: i think ron makes an
important case. a lot of our policies around borst today are more likely to encourage unilateral divorce where one party can exit the marriage without any serious consequences. and this is a response to i think the failure of an earlier model which also had its problems. today in 2019 that more and more family court judges are affording fairly equal rights when it comes to child custody. and that ann's up discouraging some of these divorces where they are not necessarily all that necessary. i would say think about borst law going forward we should be thinking more about ways to encourage couples absent serious conflict, domestic violence, a pattern of infidelity say, to do more to look at reconciliation as an option before they go ahead with divorce.
in april of 2015 in the washington post you wrote this opinion piece. realize that marriage is not just a legal thing, it is a cultural thing. when people make that public vow before friends and family members intends to change their relationship. tends to change them. marriedthat men who are get better rates when it comes to car insurance. we also know men who are married tend to work harder, smarter and tend to make more money than their peers who are not married.
i think marriage is the kind of institution that has a bigger impact on people's lives, particularly men's lives, than some young adults in america today appreciate. host: edward is next. also a dad. good morning morning. happy father's day. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity to talk about this. i feel as though the family units are breaking up because times are changing faster than people can keep up with them. i would like to hear what the gentleman thinks about this idea that might fix the family unit and unite our people as well. host: how do you respond to that guest: guest:? it is the case that from the night -- from the late 1960's to the 1990's, tremendous family changes. more kids being separated from their dads because of increases in divorce, increases in
nonmarital childbearing. i think it's important for us to recognize an encouraging sign on the horizon, that divorce rate has been coming down in recent years. i think more and more men are becoming engaged as husbands and fathers. that makes divorce less attractive and necessary for women. we are seeing since the great recession a modest downturn in nonmarital childbearing. you put those trends together what that means is more kids are being raised today in married families. in ay be seeing a shift lot of the big family trends we've been watching here in america since the 1960's. host: bonnie from modesto, california. caller: i was a single parent and i raised my two sons and their father was involved in their life but i gave up a lot to keep him involved and i paid
for it when i was older. also my sons, one is married and he is very involved in his children's lives and his children are -- seem very balanced. my other son is a single parent himself and his kids have not even seen their mother in five years and a lot of times if the partner is disruptive it's better if the marriage separates because the kids suffer because of this disruption. that is my comment. is my comment. thank you. your situation with your ex-husband, how did you keep him involved? caller: i did not push child support. i paid mainly. i was the main provider for everything medical and everything. it was good that the kids were involved -- that he was involved with their life,
but i did pay for it. host: thank you for the call. guest: i am hearing two different things. see whenat we do divorce happens or there is a breakup that most kids obviously live with their moms. moms can play a pretty important role as the gatekeeper in either letting the father into the kids' lives or keeping him out. he has his own responsibilities in that regard, too. goodthe dads are pretty dads, it is important for moms to keep that gate open for their children because it father. that is an important point to make. it is also the case that sometimes a separation is warranted. serious is a pattern of conflict come of domestic violence for instance, separation is warranted. it is important to recognize that today about two thirds of
divorces involving kids are ones where it is a low conflict situation. according to work done by my colleague at uva, in those situations it will be better for the kids for the parents to find a way to put things back together, to ride out that chapter of difficulty and look marriage page in their and to keep things together for the sake of their children. it is important to recognize that in some cases divorce or separation looks like the best thing for their kids, but in other cases it is important for parents to think carefully and step back and say to themselves may be the best thing for our kids will be for us to figure out some way to make this marriage work. host: how would you define a so-called low threshold benchmark? guest: what we have seen in the research here is that if there
are dishes flying from the kitchen on saturday night, if parents are regularly screaming at each other, that is the kind of situation where separation is the best approach. by contrast, if one parent is depressed for a period of time, if there is a reoccurring difficulty in communication, if you are feeling like you are growing apart from your spouse, these are things that are divorce reported in today. it is these kinds of lower conflict divorces that can be difficult for children. wash freeids perspective, mom and dad seem like they are functioning well enough. from a kids' perspective, they would like to keep their families together or they would like to remain in their house come at their school. were mom and dad to divorce, you will often see going between two different households. you will see people selling their home. often kids will have to go to a
new school. in those lower conflict situations where the kids' welfare is not served and their faith in the capacity of adults to form lifelong commitments, to get and stay married, becomes diminished. it has a negative impact on their sense of their own relationships, their own marital future. host: we are talking about the role of dads in society on this father's day. if you are a dad, give us a call at (202) 748-8000. our guest is brad wilcox, joining us from the campus of the university of virginia in charlottesville. he's the director of the national marriage project at uva and a senior fellow at the institute for family studies. and he is the father of nine. tony is next, new castle, pennsylvania. caller: i am 70 years old. i grew up in a different type of family structure -- society
structure. i grew up on a farm. christians a true in our family. she seemed to hold everything together. my dad was not really -- he was not against religion but he never followed it. we had a sort of dysfunctional family but they held it together. have aings all seems to good basis of life. these kids today are committing suicide all the time. they do not have some sort of higher belief in the family, and
the father structure, the parent structure. really beothing to afraid of losing your life. host: i want to point your attention and to the viewers as well in case you're interested, a piece by our guest last month in the new york times current the headline -- religious men can be devoted dads. faith sets higher spec tatian's for husbands. you can google it. -- high expectations for husbands. you can google it. guest: i think he makes a good point in the sense that kids today -- a good number of them are living apart from their fathers or have difficult relationships with their fathers. those kids are more likely to suffer from depression. if they are boys, they are more likely to end up the language or in trouble with the law. if they are girls, they are more likely to end up pregnant as teenagers. there is a connection between fatherlessness and adolescence
struggling in america today. one thing that has not come up yet but is important to underline is there is a big class divide in american families. working class and poor kids in america are much more likely to be living apart from their fathers. whose parentsids are college-educated today are much more likely to be living in a stable, married family with their fathers. we think about what is happening in our country, to our kids. one of the contemporary challenges that makes me worried is that so many kids and working class and poor families are living apart from their father and they are more likely to be struggling when it comes to things like school or when it comes to things like incarceration, the cycle of family instability that may be part of their lives. .ost: more from this study
for moms and dads, more time is being spent on childcare as the workload increases and other household activities also take an increased role it's exciting -- in society. don from houston. caller: thanks for the platform. quickly, my dad is 90 years old. in a local years union. kim -- him and my mother raised 10 children because of stability in the trade union. 1890 to 1960 more black couples were married than white. we incarcerate -- as the incarceration rate went up for black males, divorce and marriage went down. there is a correlation somewhere in the data. if we are going to address the it takes a village
to raise a child, we have to allow our children to understand -- if they are living in the united states of america, they are in a very fortunate children, even though they struggle in different pockets of communities. and if they are global children -- we teach our children to be global children, they are living in the disney world of countries. they have to understand. if you look in haiti and different countries in africa and people coming across the border now, they are in desperate and dire situations. we should connect to our children that things are not as bad as they are and they could be worse and they have the opportunity to make an impact at an early age. children are not stupid. you could teach a baby many things. little children learn the most between the ages of birth and nine years old. we should teach our children they can do something about their situation and make their world better at an early age and
not be so dependent and so depressed about their situation living in america, europe, asia, japan, somewhere like that. we have to teach our children how to think of others and how to take control of their lives and be a part of the solution and have an impact on their own well-being by helping others. host: thank you for the call. guest:. i think it is important for us to recognize that there are a lot of challenges facing kids in america today. communitiesand our can do a lot more to help our kids succeed. it is also the case that we see in the research that kids, young adults who have a sense of agency, a sense of hope, a sense of the future, regardless of where they are coming from, are more likely to flourish. one of the tasks for parents with that is to give our kids a sense of that future, that hope.
if we are successful in imparting that sense of hope, they are more likely to realize the american dream. that is one thing i would draw from that gentleman's comments. host: one other point from the caller in houston -- this is from the center of incarceration studies. 745,000 black men have been incarcerated. india, more than argentina, lebanon, canada, japan, germany, finland, israel, and great britain combined. do you want to respond? guest: i think the mass incarceration is part of one of the factors today that accounts more than onehat in four of our kids in america are living apart from their fathers.
the number and share of men who are incarcerated in america has been falling in recent years. we are pursuing an agenda of criminal justice reform trying to figure out ways to go further in reducing the number of men, the number of dads or behind bars today in america. -- who are behind bars today in america. host: one in 17 white men behind life inkely to spend prison, compared to one in three black men, one in six latino men. oregon, you are next. caller: i hate to be the naysayer on father's day weekend, but i would like to talk a little bit about this emphasis on the father staying. i grew up in a household where my mother was a saint and my father was abusive. luckily, he traveled so he was not home much. they divorced. on the day they announced that,
my sister and i were so happy. i was 10 and she was seven. we were so happy he was going but we had to hide that. we were somewhat pushed to go on little trips for a couple years and then he remarried. he was abusive to the second family. i do not understand why we cannot give some credit to single mothers. i know the fellow said he came from a single mother household. it is much better to have the father out of the picture as much as possible if there is abuse. we are not emphasizing that. we are emphasizing marriage over everything. churchup in a methodist where the minister abused his afe regularly and it was known secret. i would like to know two things from this narrator. i would like to know what his religious background is and i would like to know if in this day and age it is prudent and wise and careful to have nine
children when we have climate change and all these other problems going on. thank you for listening. host: lorraine from oregon. i am roman catholic. i'm happy to report that. my kids are a mix of adopted and biological kids. a good number of kids will be here regardless of anything. i do not think we are plane a big role in making our climate worse off -- playing a big role in making our climate worse off. certainly i would not say that every family should be headed by married parents. we know there are abusive situations. it is important for parents to separate. it is the case that my own research this past spring finds that when it comes to domestic violence, religious couples have no advantage over secular couples.
we said in this report that we just did on this question that it is important for churches, synagogues, mosques, temples to do more when it comes to this issue with domestic violence and terms of talking about the issue, raising it from the , couplesiving kids opportunities to report domestic violence in their own families and households. i would not want to suggest marriage or religion are perfect institutions. they have their limitations. it is important for those limitations to be acknowledged in our conversation. host: let's go to jerome in hanover, maryland. good morning. caller: happy father's day to all of the fathers. lcox, i wanted you to comment on the racial differences in your research, particularly in terms of how
fathers function, noncustodial fathers. there is a lot of research that suggests that despite racism african-american fathers are doing a fairly decent job. could you elaborate more on those racial differences and what african-americans are doing? guest: thanks for the question. it is a good one. we see in the research that african-american kids are more likely to be raised apart from their fathers in the research. that is a big challenge facing african-american kids. we also see that when african-american dads are in the notehold and when they are residential dads they tend to do better than their peers who are in the household compared to their peers who are nonresidential fathers. news and good news to report and acknowledge. african-american
dads and kids is complicated in that sense. it is important to acknowledge as one of the previous callers comments thatis this is a recent thing. if we are to look back at african-american families in the , the vastthe 1930's majority of african-american kids were being raised by their own married parents with the father in the home. the challenge for us is to work where a world african-american kids, boys and girls, have just the same odds of growing up in a home with their father has kids from other racial and ethnic backgrounds here in america. host: our topic is the role of fathers in society and public policy issues. our guest is brad wilcox. our phones are open at (202) 748-8000 if you are a dad and
(202) 748-8001 for all others. from new jersey, good morning. caller: thank you. it was very sad when you chose to show the diagram and it made clear the racial disparities -- i wanted you to go back. i would like for you to go back and educate us more on the racial disparities on incarceration. many of us is -- it is a good segment. -- many of us are uninformed and it is a good segment. guest: what we see in america is in the late 1970's there is a dramatic spike in incarceration. that spike in incarceration affects black dads more than it affects other dads in america. that is one of the factors that helps to account for the fact that there are large numbers of american kids today in america
who are not living with their fathers. one factor is mass incarceration. one factor is the retreat from marriage that hit african-american families particularly hard. related is that the change in our economy away from a factory economy toward a service and information economy proved to be particularly consequential and hard for african-american men, who were often employed in factory sectors. affected their marriage ability and their connections to their families. there has been a lot happening in the u.s. since the late 1960's, things that are public policy related like mass incarceration, things that are economic, but also a cultural shift deemphasizing the importance of marriage. shift, the economic shift, and the cultural shift
have ended up impacting black families more than other families in america and helps to explain why today a majority of african-american kids are not living with their own fathers. this has not always been the case. if we look back at black families in the 1930's, the 1950's, what we would see is that most black kids were being raised by married parents with dad in the household. as we move forward and think about ways we renew the connections between african-american kids and their fathers by increasing the share of black families with married family -- with married parents. caller: you said in the past few years they have been trying to pass laws where fathers can have 50-50 custody with the other parent.
i am in a custody dispute right now trying to be a father to my youngest daughter. blocks thating into nobody represents the fathers that try to be in their , yet they lives uphold everything else is their responsibility like child-support and health insurance. host: what are the roadblocks you are facing? why not 50-50 for you and the mother of the daughter? caller: nobody enforces my rent. i have been in court for the last two years trying to be in my daughter's life. every time she stops me from seeing my daughter, i have to go back to court. it takes months. host: how old is your daughter? caller: she is 15 this year. and i have nond recourse to go get my daughter.
we have tried to pick her up for the last few days. we just have to go through the courts. they keep saying it is a civil matter. go to court. host: thank you for sharing your story. what advice would you give him or the courts? guest: the particulars of his -- momsit is a case should try to keep the gate door open for the dad provided that he is a decent guy and a good father. it is incumbent on the mom to be more responsive and allow her daughter to connect to her father. from the court's perspective, some family courts are good today in awarding basically joint custody to both parents, absent any kind of evidence of abuse or problematic behavior.
that is the direction to which we should be aiming when it comes to divorce and child custody. there are also plenty of courts where moms are advantaged in the legal process in ways that do not necessarily correspond to the investment that the father had in the family, in the marriage, and the kids prior to the divorce happening. that is certainly a tragedy that we see playing out in plenty of families and plenty of courtrooms across america even today. host: from columbia, south carolina, charles. caller: i listened to the lady who made the comment that she had a terrible father, abusive father, and she made other comments about dads. i know there are bad dads. i did not necessarily have the poster child for the best dad. -- irally, i do not think think as we go along it has
become over the last 30 years more acceptable to have a child without a dad. i think the latest stats are that over seven black children born today will not have a dad. i think seven out of 10 do not have dads when they are born. quasi-adopted some lower income african-american men, young boys that do not have dads. -- if theyave them are going to go to an event on a saturday morning, they have to stay with us friday night because we could not find them saturday morning because the moms do not know where they are or the moms may have different people sleeping over. it is turmoil. i think we are not really painting a total picture. there is a cultural breakdown when there is no dad in the household. bob: let's also hear from from new york, also a dad. caller: good morning.
happy father's day to everybody. i am going to give you a little for instance -- i am from new york. in 1989, there is a fathers rights group. i ended up with full legal custody and child support. that all the benefits their mother would normally have gotten. in new york in 1989 there were plenty of father's rights groups. a dad can take care of two children as well as the mother. there is another woman that called in commenting that the wife should have the child -- no. the most capable person come at the most responsible person -- most capable person, the most responsible person. i went through a case for a week and a half with a judge and what a wise man. he spoke. he took everything into account. legalawarded full
custody. check up on the laws in new york and may beget legislation going. get legislation going. have a great father's day. host: thank you. brad wilcox, what are you hearing from these callers? guest: it is the case that moms and dads can both play important roles in their kids' lives. there are more and more cases today where dads are getting primary custody and there are more single dads out there. that is just one indication of that trend. to go to the first caller we heard, i think the big picture is that there are bad dads. there are situations where breakups are the best strategy. you have to recognize as a culture that communities that have strong, married families
anchoring them are much more likely to be communities serving the welfare of kids. we see research from harvard university. one of the most powerful predictors of ability for poor is growing up in a neighborhood with lots of dads or a neighborhood with lots of married people in that neighborhood. there are exceptions. we all know there are exceptions. in general, if we have more neighborhoods in america today with married fathers in the neighborhood, there would be more economic opportunity, less child poverty. there would be less incarceration facing our kids, facing our boys in particular. part of the big picture is recognizing that in terms of going forward and making progress, we have to do more to strengthen the connections between dads and their kids. marriage is one of those
institutions that connects fathers to their children, even in 2019. host: we welcome our viewers on the bbc parliament channel, which carries the washington journal and this network every sunday. it is midafternoon in great britain. norma is joint -- joining us from hastings, england. caller: good morning to you. threed like to make points. i was listening to the world -- what is said during those hours is not often said during daylight hours. 70% of americans -- have less than $200 to fall back on.
that is absolutely amazing. if so many american people have so little security. i dother thing is that -- not think i'm allowed to mention another. mi? host: go ahead. i have listened to a book and it is loss of innocence. want a better description of life from the 1960's the ,resent time, especially women you could not get a better description than this. i listened to it three times because it is almost like he knows women. it is almost like he is inside. countrysomeone in this who says the same ability to
penetrate the minds of others, especially women, which is a rare gift. shouldle want to, they -- i'm not advocating to buy the book or whatnot, but it is a wonderful illustration. wish -- ipoint is i am talking now. i wish this was on every day in britain. we have a rule in britain you cannot say what you want. americans can say what you like. -- wewe always into always enjoy hearing from you. you have a big election coming up at the conservative party. we will watch that. caner: i hope the gentleman answer, especially about the number of people who have very little in the bank. financial --out the checkbook and the finances
of families and the impact that has on dads? guest: is an important point. we do know that families are more likely to form and be stable when there is a decent thate and decent job parents have access to. one of the challenges and problems facing our families in america today is that too few men that do not have college degrees are stably employed. we have to figure out ways to make opportunities from working-class men -- for working-class men, for poor men more accessible to men and to improve things like locational thattion and training so more of our men in this country have a chance to have decent jobs with decent incomes that make them more attractive as husbands and fathers here in the u.s.. you get the last word from louisiana.
minute caller: i understand there are some deadbeat fathers but also there are great fathers. when i look at is the unfairness in the judicial system. if you have three individuals and two commit a crime, each would have their day in court where they can either prove themselves innocent or be found guilty. arenas, whatort you have is the males and females break up. they go their separate ways and then in a lot of cases, in most, the guy is automatically placed on child support even though he has been a father and that child's life. host: we will have time for a quick comment. guest: when it comes to child usport, it is important for
to have rights and response abilities. if you have a child, you have a responsibility to pay for the child's support. but also a right to have an important role in his or her life going forward. host: brad wilcox, if people want to follow you on social media, how can they do so? am on twitter. host: our guest is the director of the national marriage project at the university of virginia and senior fellow at the institute of married studies. thank you for spending part of your father's day with us and now you can go back to those nine children of yours. attention torn our news and iran and from the saudi crown prince. this headline as the saudi prince vows to confront threats after the u.s. blames iran for the tinker attack -- tanker attack. you can big -- you begin dialing
at (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 we are back in just a moment. ofmuch of us when we think winston churchill we think of the older man sending young men into war, but no one knew better and few knew as well that -- the term or anf war, the devastation. he said to his mother after his through.re, it comes you cannot gild it. he knew the disaster that war was. , historianon q&a candace mullarkey talks about the early military career of -- kansas mullarkey -- candice millard talks about the early career of winston churchill in her book "hero of the empire:
the boer war, a daring escape, and the making of winston churchill." pretorias up going to on the day it fell to the british. he takes over the prison and he frees the men who have been his fellow prisoners. he puts into prison his former jailers and he watches as the flag is torn down and the union jack is hoisted in its place. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. monday night on the communicators, we are on capitol fromtalking to exhibitors ces on the hill, an event that gives staffers an advanced look at new tech products. >> we are in a changing world where technology is moving so quickly and so many policies are affected, whether it is artificial intelligence or robotics. -- of this amazing software
congress has to be aware of it so they can make a difference and tackle issues like privacy or other issues involving competitiveness. we are in a major battle with other economies, especially china. >> wants to communicators monday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: in just a moment, we want to hear from you on u.s. iran tensions following the remarks this past week by secretary of state mike pompeo and the president, weighing in on fox and friends on friday. aining us on the phone is correspondent in tehran for the los angeles times. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: let me begin with the news this morning. the saudi crown prince is bowing retaliation, potentially, if i ron continues as tensions
increase along the straight of hormuz. why is this significant? it is significant because saudi arabia and iran have already been involved in wars. they have been fighting each in yemen,ugh proxies everywhere. whether it is a stooge or a lackey or paid mercenary. proxy wars and two powers -- it is important because it can clear up the proxy wars and even a regional war between two big powers in the region.
from thes is a quote saudi crown prince. newspapere pan-arabic , "the kingdom does not want war in the region but we will not hesitate to deal with any threat to our people, our sovereignty, and our vital interests. " read between the lines. what is on the table. -- what is on the table? guest: potentially, a regional war. in their mind, iran is also sending the same signal. we are not starting a war. of a warot be a start even with america. we deserve our sovereignty. if we are attacked. , it is aevel rhetorical war between two big powers in the region.
this can be translated into real military confrontation between two big powers. these two bighat powers -- host: we are talking with ramin mostaghim, a correspondent with the los angeles times joining us from tehran. on your website, the headline is that the u.s. is weighing options with regards to iran. iraniansted of that removing the mind from the cargo ship. the link we heard from mike pompeo -- what more can you tell us about what potentially might have happened? potentially there might be a minor incident in the , and attack to the
speedboat. incident,e a minor but this minor incident can become a major incident in the region. we can expect there might be a confrontation between the aircraft carrier of the american .orce this is imminent. briefly, explain the significance of the strait of homuz and why this is such a vital waterway. global oil consumption -- 1/10 of global oil consumption uz.transported to horm
around 19 million barrels a day is transported there. it is important. any minor incidents in the persian gulf can have big impacts to the price of oil across the world and can increase tension in the region and even has the potential to be translated into a global war, a sort of world war. lots of countries have benefits here. europe, america, south asia, , all the little stays in the persian gulf, they have lots of things at stake. , it caning happens here have great impacts and potentially turn out to be a
.ajor incident we can call it a regional war. host: ramin mostaghim is joining us from tehran. his work is available at latimes.com. thank you for being with us. new yorke of today's times -- this is the headline from the analysis piece. iran face off feeds hawks on each side. they begin with these words. as i ran at the united states face off in the gulf of oman , the risk may not be at sea but in tehran and washington, where hardliners are feeding on the moment for political advantage. we will go to henry from michigan. caller: good morning. i think we have all seen this picture before. it is called wagging the dog. bolton wants his war.
the saudi's are acting as proxies and are probably going to try to get this whole thing ignited for the greater glory of fdr, who isblican the worst president this country has ever seen for the worst party this country has ever seen and the worst electorate this country is ever seen. this is ridiculous. we have seen this before. they are going to squander millions and millions of dollars. probably billions of dollars. lots of lives are going to be lost for no other reason than to get donald trump's treason off the table. we do not need to impeach him. we need to indict him. we need to indict everyone around him. he said he was going to get the best people. he has not gotten the best people. he has gotten the worse people.
from cnn --eadline iranians fire the missile at the u.s. drone prior to a tanker attack. details at cnn.com. from michigan, bob. caller: i guess i am just echoing that previous caller to some degree. likedoes look suspiciously history repeating itself. kind oferring to the dispute that started the vietnam war. here's what i really think. investigate -- we need to investigate what really happened in this incident and john bolton. investigate that guy. want a war with iran. they just want us to fight it. foxnews.comiece at
-- trump should get tougher with iran after it tax oil ta -- after it attacks oil tankers. we will go to scotland with nicholas, who is next, watching us on the bbc parliament channel. caller: good afternoon. -- my question was, if i were a ship's captain and the strait of hormuz and i had known about any other attacks, the first thing i would mye ordered would be either own security forces checking the bow of my ship for any device that might cause a potential problem. to wait for another potential attack from an iranian supposedly boat is ridiculous. i do not know what the timescale was between the film of that
boat approaching that tinker, but i think there could have been more done if there was a will. that is my only comment. will go to sarah from new hampshire as we look at incident -- video of that incident. caller: we need to question our alliances here, the saudis. they were behind 9/11. there were behind osama bin laden, the taliban, isis. why are we even having a relationship with them? they are involved in a religious war. it is against our constitution to be involved with a religious war, i would think. two years ago we were getting along fine with iran. since donald trump got in, he has escalated. i do not believe one word coming from donald trump, pompeo, or bolton. the video -- has anybody heard
of photoshop? that could be the saudis starting this, to go with the guy ahead of me. the saudis are trying to get us involved in a war with iran. this is to distract from the troubles donald trump is in. he does not care about american soldiers that will go and get killed here for him. his family is not going to fight. it is ridiculous that this has gone on for two years and now people -- i even hear the media falling in place like this is a real thing. before the day was out -- had analyzed this forensically? that is ridiculous. and came up with that it was the iranians. i think that iran is a sovereign nation. they have a right to exist. we should not be meddling in the middle east. we should not be supporting a
religious war by the saudi's human --he mnes -- yemenis or iran. it is against our constitution. but we need to do is start and impeachment inquiry. we should be on and impeachment path and we should be on an incarceration path. .his is teflon dawn this is an organized crime syndicate running out of the white house. host: thank you for the call. more details from cnn.com -- and hours before the attack on those iraniansrs, the spotted a u.s. drone flying overhead and launched a surface-to-air missile at the unmanned aircraft. the missile missed the drone and fell into the water according to u.s. officials. the president on friday on fox and friends asked about iran. here's a portion of that conversation.
[video clip] a the strait of hormuz is critical shipping lane. is the united states obligated to keep it open? >> it is not going to be closed for long. they know it. they have been in strong terms that we will get them back to the table if they want to go back. whenever they are ready, it is ok. i am in no rush. is a goodpresident friend of yours. japan is friends with iran. the iranian president says you are not worthy of a return pop -- about possible talks. >> i am glad he likes me so much. no reason why he should like me. i came in. they had all -- everything. they were doing just fantastically, threatening everybody. they were bombing the hell out of countries. they were killing people all over the middle east.
now all of a sudden they are pulling back from everywhere come out of yemen. -- everywhere, out of yemen. i am not looking to hurt that country but they cannot have a nuclear weapon. nuclearook at the iran deal, we gave them all that money. in six to seven years, which radiation is like one second -- which for a nation is one second. we will not have it. ont: back to your calls u.s.-iran tensions. david joining us from south dakota, republican line. caller: that previous caller was , that the iranians were's photoshopped and everything is trump fault -- were photoshopped and everything
is trump's fault. iran has been our enemy since jimmy carter helped overthrow the shah of iran. they are a little country that keeps pushing and pushing because for years they have gotten away with it. now they do not know how to handle a president who is not going to be pushed around. you have to stop them. i almost lost my train of thought when the previous caller said it is trump's fault. people that of the they can say anything they want about the president of the united states -- i am really getting tired of it. i am glad we have got somebody in the white house with a staff that is not going to let iran get away with it. i do not know if you guys
remember going back years the reaganinute that ronald was taking the oath of office are hostages left iranian airspace at the exact second and jimmy carter took credit for their release. i think we should back our president and let him do what he wants to straighten things out because for eight years we had a guy that all he did was apologize for everything that was going on. i want to share this tweet from george conway, the husband of kellyanne conway. democrats want a steady leader and bite in trump by 10 points. trump byleading this point. fake news even from fox news. the new fox news poll has biden at 49% and bernie sanders at
49%, donald trump at 40%. us fromis joining richmond, virginia on u.s.-iran tensions. caller: good morning. thank you so much for letting us .se your platform i have always told everybody if you want to get the truth immediately go to c-span. ever since the iconic escalator , before that all i knew about donald trump was he was a reality show host and new york city developer. host: that famous escalator ride was four years ago today. caller: it first time i began looking into him was when he insulted john mccain. fast-forward up to now. lies hennot trust the spoke about the inauguration numbers, how should we be trusting him relative to something so vital as conflict in the strait of hormuz? furtherank you
call. from the washington post, trump's consistent criticism of iran pushing the u.s. to the point of a potential conflict. policystant part of the of donald trump has been his fears criticism of iran and what he described as a weak nuclear compact that other countries negotiated with iran. threats and sanctions have been with vagueesponse offers of future negotiations. fits theeaction pattern but also reveals the limits of his administration' comin -- administration. to raleigh, north carolina, independent line. caller: this defies common sense. the japanese president was there -- it defiesng
common sense. host: let's go to frank, who is in canton, ohio. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a proud supporter of mr. donald trump. and fed up with the lies derision of the leftist. pleased -- i'm a veteran for peace, but i stand with mr. trump. we cannot let iran develop nuclear weapons. we are trying to de-escalate nuclear weapons in this world. i stand behind mr. trump. i am not happy about mr. bolton being in the saddle. donald trump has done a phenomenal job. thank you for taking my call. host: oklahoma. caller: good morning.
that whatted to say is going on between iran and thei arabia is as old as when theislam -- prophet mohammed, peace be upon him, and i am saying that out of respect for him because i am a roman catholic -- that split is as old as the split in islam. infidels'ne of business, but saudi arabia one sosa do their dirty work -- wants us to do their dirty work. host: maryland. caller: good morning. i want to put this out into the spirit-based consciousness. if we do not live according to
the lawyers and recognize -- liars and recognize them as liars, we are not thinking. we are just going along as a waking zombie. host: joseph from pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i wanted to say that i think iran does need to be dealt with. they cannot be allowed to run amok in the region. the biggestof mistakes made was made under the obama administration with hillary clinton as secretary of state with the arab spring. as far as who is telling the truth and who is lying, people choose who they want to believe and who they do not want to believe. i am sure both sides are lying. if trump is guilty, they should impeach and indict. they are using it as an election year political football. host: we will go to new jersey. caller: i was just wondering how they will lie.
us into this war we have a bad history with iran. -- lie us into this war. we have a bad history with iran. we lied a war into iran liquid into iraq. this is ridiculous. we have a criminal in the white house. it. is disgusting -- it is disgusting. host: the headline from the washington post says the trump administration is stepping up its efforts to show iran carried out the attack. caller: good afternoon. the timing of the attack of the exactly when japan was negotiating in iran proves there are many factions in iranian politics. if the u.s. wants to negotiate with iran, they have to
negotiate with all factions. there is no absolute power in iran. that is what this attack was, a signal to america. host: thank you for watching on the bbc parliament channel. up on fivecoming sunday shows on c-span radio beginning with nbc's meet the press at noon eastern time. you can listen to it on the free c-span radio app. we are back tomorrow morning with c-span's washington journal. the washington examiner will be joining us as well as the national journal to talk about the week ahead in the white house and the capital. , former special assistant to the president, will talk about the white house and its battles with congress. he is a cnn contributor. that is tomorrow morning on c-span's washington journal. we will have live coverage of president trump's reelection
kickoff rally tuesday evening at 8:00 eastern time and your calls and reactions afterwards from orlando, florida. a lot of presidential politics in the week ahead. you can check out the schedule online at c-span.org. a very happy father's day. thanks for joining us on this sunday. hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> here is some of what you can watch today on father's day. newsmakers is next. house budget committee chair talks about efforts to reach deals on multiple spending deals, including those for the pentagon and departments and health and human services. at 10, last night's virginia
democratic party gala. >> when we think of winston churchill, we think of a man sending young men into war. into w -- the realities of war, terror and devastation. he absolutely new that, disaster the war was. q&a, a historian to bed career of winston churchill in her book, euro of the empire, the daring escape. >> he said i want to go and i want to gh