tv Washington Journal 06182019 CSPAN June 18, 2019 7:00am-10:01am EDT
washington institute for near east policy on the tensions between the u.s. and iran. later, casey burgat and nick, lights -- nick tomboulides -- termg term limit limits for members of congress. host: good morning. it is tuesday, june 18. the senate convenes at 10:00 a.m. in the house meets at noon and we are with you for the next eight hours on the "washington journal." we begin with a question on poverty in america. we are asking viewers what federal policies are needed to help the poor? give us a call on phone lines split up by annual income. if you make less than $25,000 a year, the phone number is 202-748-8000. if you make between $25,000 and $100,000 a year, 202-748-8001. if you make over $100,000 a
year, the phone number is 202-748-8002. you can catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good tuesday morning. you can start calling now on this question as we show you some stats on poverty. in 2019, the poverty level for a household of 4 with an annual $25,750 or below, the 2018 the latest year where there are federal stats for this range, 500 53,000 americans were considered homeless. in 2017, the poverty rate was 12.3%. americans did of not have health insurance. we are having this conversation
on poverty in america in the wake of a forum in which 9 presidential candidates spoke. it was the poor people's campaign form and one of them was bernie sanders. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> the point is for us to begin to think about what freedom means and in the richest country in the history of the world, half of the people in our country should not be forced to live paycheck to paycheck. 500,000 americans should not be forced to sleep on the street tonight. millions of working-class parents should not be forced to lack affordable childcare for their kids. is about ismpaign not only winning the democratic primary and defeating donald
trump. this campaign is about transforming this country, about creating a nation in which all of our people have a decent standard of living. host: senator bernie sanders at the poor people's campaign presidential forum that took place here in d.c. yesterday. there were 9 democratic candidates who spoke. we are asking you this morning for your suggestions about what policies are needed to help the poor in this country. senator kamala harris was another one of the senators that spoke at that forum. here are the policy provisions she proposed. [video clip] >> let's talk about affordable health care. it is one of the biggest issues we are talking the least about. in 99% of counties in the united states, if you are a
minimum-wage worker, you cannot afford a one bedroom apartment. what i call the rent relief act. for renters paying more than 30% of their income in rent plus utilities, they will receive a tax credit so they can get through the month paying rent. i also connect it to the issue of what we need to do around equal pay, what we need to do to raise the minimum wage. when we talk about people in poverty, we know the numbers say if you pay attention to federal minimum wage, those are poverty wages. .hat is $15,000 a year i also support what we need to do. i was marching with folks a week ago picketing mcdonald's talking about what we need to do to lift the minimum wage at least $15 an hour.
but we also need to do is understand that in america today , almost half of american families cannot afford a $400 unexpected expense. that can be the car breaks down, a health bill you do not's -- did not see coming. it can topple the success of that family. wanted to hear from you this morning, having a conversation about poverty in this country and your suggestions for what federal policies might help. janice first out of washington on the line for those who make below $25,000 a year. good morning. good morning morning. i think they should quit taking away from medicare and medicaid and social security and the things people really need that are living that don't have enough to live otherwise.
give to thee to poor. the rich should be lessened because they don't need the money and they are going to overspend. the poor are homeless and not having enough to pay their bills. there is a law in the country that the rich have to help the poor. not only by the country, but the law of god is the rich should sendthe poor and he would the rich away because it is the poor he loves. oft: lawrence is next out minnesota on the line for those who make over $100,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning. always good to hear your voice. what i would like to see is an emphasis in middle and high schools, and emphasis on freedom , liberty, entrepreneurship, and
finance so people can pave a path so they are creating opportunities for themselves and their families so we are getting away from what i would call dependency governance. my fear about dependency governance is it is not building that sense of self-preservation and human achievement and human dignity. i would like to see more emphasis on what can we do to create a robust economy for small, medium, and large businesses? i think that is a better way not just for the broader society, but also the individual. host: do you think the republican tax cuts bill is doing that as something that creates the rising tide floating all boats that you are talking about here? >> i think there -- caller: i think there are certain elements that say that is a step in the
right direction, but i think it has to be broader such that our young people understand what they can do to control their own destinies as opposed to relying on the government to build their prosperity. host: president trump certainly believes the tax cuts and jobs act was something that helped people across the economic spectrum in this country and included in the tax cuts and jobs act was the idea of opportunity zones, a program president trump proposed as part of that plan. it was designed to spur investment in economically distressed census tracts. there were some 807,000 areas around the country designated as opportunity zones where there would be a reduction in capital gains taxes for individuals and businesses invested in those areas, opportunity zones
existing in all 50 states, part of the tax cuts and jobs act, president trump earlier this spring spoke about the idea and the usefulness of opportunity zones. [video clip] >> want all americans to share in our great economic renewal. that is why governors in all 50 states and territories have designated 8007 hundred neighborhoods as opportunity zones. 8700. household income in these communities is 37% less than the in a state as a whole, so 37% down and we are catching them fast. in order to revitalize these areas, we have lowered the capital gains tax. all the way down to a fat, beautiful number of zero. [applause] that is why they are looking and
saying i don't want to go there. maybe i don't love the location then they hear about a zero and say, i think i will go there and they start taking the location, right? host: we are hearing from you about what federal policies you think are needed to help the poor in this country. phone lines split up by income level. on the line for those who make below $25,000 a year. in washington, d.c., good morning. theer: good morning to c-span listeners. i am a first time caller. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. recommendation is that defense spending be cut. and some of that money be allocated to affordable housing. i am a 56-year-old disabled individual currently residing in d.c.
it is a shame before god that in northern virginia, maryland, and d.c. that there are some let -- so many homeless citizens that were born and raised here and pay their taxes and they don't have a place to live. we also need to stop allowing illegal immigrants and people to come into this country as when we don't even take care of our people here. my mother is 82 years old. she lives in subsidized housing and so do i, but when you have slumlords and people on the streets, god is not pleased with that. we need to take care of people who are working class people and pay their taxes and legal no matter what race, no matter what ethnicity, they need affordable housing. i came in on the last part of the poor people's campaign with
kamala harris and i like what she said about the $15 minimum wage. i am a former federal government employee myself. it is a shame. i am on social security disability income. it is a shame government programs are set up -- they need to reform some of the program -- if i wanted to go back to work 56-year-old legally blind woman, i should be able to -- so i can live a middle-class life in middle-class housing and have the opportunity to afford if i wanted to, a home or a house or a condo. host: what is the trap, what is keeping you from doing that? caller: i like that point. if i go back like i am not
ashamed to say this, 1000 dollars a month. if i go back, the ticket to work program limits me to how much i can make. host: it limits you to how much you can make and still get that $1000 a month? caller: correct. if they deem aiken work, which i cannot, 12 months a year, then they are going to cut my social security income. i am a former pentagon employee. i paid into that. my son is a single-parent. .et me give you an example i have to prioritize and budget. let me bring the church into this. i am a bible practicing christian. they should be of -- ashamed of themselves read if people pay their offerings, they need to
give back to the poor and help -- some ofob skills this money with defense and giving to other countries that do not give back -- i am not democrat or republican, by the i am a former business administration major as well. cut areas of our national budget and channel that money back into building affordable housing. a stop allowing developers in northern virginia, fairfax, washington, d.c. and marilyn to ford these homes and condos 200000 and $400,000 where people working 2 and three jobs cannot afford that. host: you mentioned homelessness in this country. in 2018, the last year we have official stats from the federal
government, some 553,000 americans were homeless in this country. usa today in their front page story focuses on homelessness in los angeles. los angeles county, which has been plagued by rising rates saw an -- an increase in the homeless population. the city of los angeles was up 16% to 58,936, three quarters of whom live on the streets or in cars. headline homeless health is the story. we can show you the front page as we go to lewis in georgia on that line for those who make between $25,000 a year and $100,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: i wanted to comment if i could on some of the previous statements made.
i fully believe the democratic party needs to start expanding its tent to include business and corporate america. there are a slew of small business owners incorporate american leadership that do not agree with the direction the country is going. what i mean by that is it is obvious that the trump administration has placed its energies to boosting the earnings and wealth position of the 1% or 2% in this country. many corporate leaders do not believe in that. corporations need to be brought into the discussion regarding the reduction of poverty, the expansion of medical care for everyone, the restructuring of our education structure to include educational resources
across the board regardless of income from families and, again, that iing of dependency heard from a previous individual on your program. that after world war ii, the united states literally rebuilt europe, literally rebuilt asia toward the beginning of the conflict with hitler, the united states was supplying russia at that time, stalin with billions and billions of dollars of equipment , trucks, machinery, equipment, thattera to assist in effort. this notion of government dependency, and i agree, perhaps there is too much government dependency, but government dependency is important in terms toward theg itself
elevation of the american people, particularly low income, low wealth individuals. 400a has been able to turn million people, almost half a million people from dirt farmers into the middle class. if china could do it and china was an ally of ours -- if china can do it, why can't the united states do it? host: this is will in north carolina on the line for those who make below $25,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have a couple mate -- a couple suggestions. one major suggestion is a guaranteed minimum income, universal basic income, there is a few different terms for it. andrew gains is running on a platform where he is in support
of basic income. i think if we are willing to do what we ought to do and look at andstatistics and the facts look at what we are being told by looking at -- i am sorry -- let me put it this way, when you give people money directly, you get the most bang for your buck, you get the most out of it. the most efficient way for us to spread the wealth that we all participate in in this country is universal basic income. we have taken away manufacturing out of this country, put it in countries where they can be paid lower incomes. meanwhile, trying to fight for jobs. america is not a jobs country anymore. we are not going to have jobs
here. we are never going to do this, never going to help the poor people, never going to get anything done by focusing on jobs and incomes and wages. those thing can help for people who are working, but we are at a point where we are going to have to put dividends into the hands of everybody. host: that is will in north carolina. you mentioned andrew yang. he spoke at that poor people's forum in washington, d.c. here is a bit of what he had to say about the universal income. [video clip] >> if you have heard anything about me, you have heard this, there is an asian man running for president who wants to give everything -- everyone $1000 a month. it seems dramatic in 20, but not it, but king fought for thomas kane called it a freedom dividend. this would be tremendous for
america. it passed the u.s. house of representatives twice in 1971 and there is one state that has a dividend right now and what state is that? and how does alaska funded? what is the oil of the 21st data, technology, ai, self-driving crops -- trucks, what they are doing in alaska with oil money, we can do for everyone in america with technology money. the inhuman nature of our economy is about to ramp up in unprecedented ways. host: andrew yang at the poor people's forum yesterday. the poor people's campaign as the new york times notes seeks to draw attention to issues like poverty and systemic racism. it is a revival of the campaign planned by dr. reverend king junior before his assassination a half-century ago.
the poor people's campaign, we noted the poverty rate is about 12.3 percent, about 40 million americans and they put the number of americans in poverty or poor or low income at closer americans.ion they use the archer umbrella of levelpplemental poverty and those that live at less than twice the poverty line to define those who are poor or low income in this country. you can read more about them and their campaign on the website where 9 presidential candidates appeared yesterday. part of the reason we are having this conversation asking what federal policies are needed to help the poor. yolanda in georgia on the line for those who make over $100,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning. what theto know
government is doing about the national lunch program. some kids get free lunch, but some kids don't. i think we should start where our children are. our children need to feel like they are all equal to each other . as adults, we already don't and we accepted -- except -- we already accept it. children need to be supported. i don't understand why children need to pay for school lunch. host: ray in west virginia, the line for those who make a low $25,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: how are you this morning? host: i am doing well. caller: i get a little check from the government. it is not much for it i also have a house payment that comes out of it, electric bill, everything. it is hard to make it on what i
get. i am disabled and cannot work. and a $300a month house payment plus electric and .tuff, it leaves nothing left i thank you. host: what could help you, sir? caller: a little extra money. they can spend it on bringing other people to our country and stuff and i am born and raised here, worked all my life. they should to spend some of it on the american people. i am 63 years old and i had my neck broke and my back broke and i am living on like you say, .overty
i thank you, i just wanted to make it short and sweet. host: thanks for the call. the poverty guideline for those who live by themselves is $12,490 a year. we mentioned those in a family of 4. the poverty level if you make 25,750 dollars a year or less. of those rates set each year by the federal government. here is what those rates are used for, what programs use the poverty guidelines, the supplemental nutrition assistance program available to use at 130% of the federal poverty level or less. households must have less than $3500 in assets with an elderly or disabled person. medicaid is available to families whose income is 138% of the poverty level. the affordable care act provides insurance subsidies for
households between 148 and 40% of the poverty level. head start, the national school lunch program, the low income energy assistance program, and the children's health insurance program. those numbers and that information from the balance .com, a good place to go to when you look for federal government monetary policy. lloyd in brooklyn, new york, on the line for those who make between $25,000 a year and $100,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: it is nice to hear this program on, but i think the whole thing about america right now is the need to change their policy. this policy of economics we are basing our living on his no good . be focusing on not
giving anything back to the createoping they can jobs, but pay the working man a living wage. the economy is not doing great because trump has not even decided -- if it is doing so everybody should be making $15, $20 an hour. they are not giving that to the people. the people are making a little over what they were making before. that is the problem with america right now. poor people have been working hard all their lives, but they they are not able to live a standard that is acceptable. people who should be working a full-time job should be working at least and having a living
wage. that is the problem with america . the people having money, they have to pay -- they are doing fabless look -- fabulously well. they need to pay the ordinary man a living wage. host: you mentioned president trump. he was at a conference at the white house in april talking about his opportunity zones program. cutlso talked about the tax and jobs act and the impact it has had on poverty. here is what the president had to say. [video clip] >> since we passed our historic tax cuts and reforms a year ago,
wages are rising fact and rising -- fast and rising quickly for the lowest income americans. you keep hearing for the wealthy, it is not the wealthy. if you look at it, it is for blue-collar workers, lower income people are rising the fastest. african-american unemployment, hispanic american unemployment, asian american unemployment have reached the lowest levels in the history of our country. [applause] new jobless claims are the .owest in 50 years private employers have added an average of more than 6500 jobs every single day. think of that. amazing. host: that was president trump in april at the white house. taking your calls, asking what federal policies are needed to help the poor. looking for your calls on phone
lines split up by income level and looking for tweets and income levels. randy writing the government should get away from social causes. they are best done by ngos and private organizations specifically dedicated for each purpose. there should be significantly higher minimum wage, better income access, daycare so people can afford to work. public transportation initiatives for cities who don't have them. it is not that hard. mark said invest in education. i would rather teach someone then give them handouts. matt saying end the two-party system, end citizens united, end corporate lobbying. we want to hear from you again. the phone lines if you make under $25,000 a year, it is 202-748-8000. between 25000 and $100,000 a year, it is 202-748-8001. if you make over $100,000 a year, 202-748-8002.
gordon from kansas city makes between 25000 and 100,000 a year -- $25,000 and $100,000 a year. caller: hi. host: go ahead, gordon. caller: i think the government should get completely out of the welfare business and you can watch people eat when they go to work. the lady from washington, d.c. that said she sucked off the pentagon her whole life and now she is on social security disability, that is what is wrong with this country. under obama you could get social security disability for not being able to get an erection. thank you very much. area has a lot of childhood poverty.
, there are a lot of summer feeding programs the government sponsored. all children regardless of income of the parents or whomever are eligible. i think it is as long as you are not older than 18. as for nongovernment programs that help with childhood poverty,, a lot of the churches give out free meals i think once a week. thank you for this subject. for: a report out yesterday the kids count report that comes out annually. that is down from great .ecession levels many children are native
americans, latinos, immigrants -- this is about the report that -- 13ut yesterday citing million people continue to live in poverty despite economic growth we have seen recently and the low unemployment. the share of children without health insurance increased slightly in 2017. the most recent year studied, but remains at all-time lows at 5% contributive in large part to the state medicaid programs and -- since 1990, the national rate of childhood poverty has remained unchanged. for more on that report, you can go to the story in the washington post today about it. what are some of your suggestions? caller: i listened to that lady from washington, d.c. and she admitted to being
governmentration housing subsidy. that is great stuff. this is really where this country is right now. where are people that wanted to get up and go do their thing and try to get out of poverty? -- i don't know, the education system they should change the department of education to the department of indoctrination. amazing host: this is sherry out of iowa. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to invite any politician. i know they read off graphs and percentages and things like
this, but i would like to invite any politician to come and live with anyone who lives on disability. i work a part-time job thinking i was going to get ahead and at that time, it was $85 a month extra i could make without any penalty. in lowgot the figure income housing, i ended up being less. whole -- hole $85 the system is not working. i would like to ask any politician and eat my meals and live in my home as to what we people with disabilities who cannot work have to live through . i know we have the homeless and we should be grateful we have a roof over our head and something you gorefrigerator, but to a doctor and they tell you to eat healthy, we cannot afford that. host: there is a lot of
politicians coming through iowa, have you had a chance to see and talk to them about this issue? caller: i had a call the other night on the survey of if you recognized any of them and to be truthful, i don't recognize a lot of them. biden i hear about, sanders, there are already things that have been in the news for years. i have not heard any of them say anything i have not heard yet. it will take some time. i have not said or heard anything recently about the poor. host: you mentioned joe biden, --o at that campaign form here is what they had to say about poverty and low income in this country. [video clip] >> for too many years the animating principle of what has happened is with great income and a quality, what has happened is the charlatans have been able to pit black folks against white
folks against latinos, et cetera and because you have a problem, it is the other, look what is happening now. the reason poor folks are poor is because of all those immigrants, muslims, african-americans, et cetera. it is a bunch of malarkey and the fact of the matter is the people campaign and tend to end this exploitation. the income inequality is greater than any time since the turn of the last century. it's not only that we have less than half the people -- almost half the people of the united states in poverty. it is ridiculous we have this extreme, extreme change going on. society.uities in our our policy discriminates against people,lues black native americans, women of color, african-americans, lgbtq individuals. refugees, immigrants, asylum-seekers.
they talk about our children. these aren't some of the else's children, they are all our children. they are the kite strings that lift our national ambitions aloft to you cannot say it is their children. they are america's children. every single one of them should be treated with dignity. host: former vice president yesterday in washington, d.c.. if you want to watch any of the speakers from that event, you can go to our website at c-span.org. you can type in any of those you have seen. there were 9 total presidential candidates who spoke at the poor people's campaign. yesterday the new york times noting organizers said president trump had been invited to appear at that form and did not appear yesterday. taking your calls on phone lines split up by income level, linda is next out of alaska. the line for those who make between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning.
i am in that category, but i am on the low category. i make about $26,000 a year. a lot of what your other colors have been saying, i found to be true that a lot of the government programs, they give with one hand and take away with the other hand and put so many restrictions and rules that you would rather not have them. i work part-time and i have no government assistance. even the affordable care act i found was not very affordable. they wanted me to pay over $1600 a month for my premium and offered a sliding scale to bring me down to $250 a month, but if i earn just a little bit more, i would lose that and be on the hook for the entire extreme $1650d $50 of premium -- of premium. i determined i cannot afford to
take the chance. what we really need for poor people is housing that is truly affordable. one of the problems in our anmunity is if a person has apartment, they will be paying $150 a month going to property taxes. then you have utilities. people think poor people don't pay property taxes. i can ensure you landlords do not pay that out of the goodness of their hearts, they pass it onto the tenants. what i mean by housing that is truly affordable is if the person were on ssi and save --ska boosts that to cannot get a place in --t $300 to $400 price range
host: you make about $26,000 a year all in each month. what does it cost you from mortgage and utilities? caller: i am renting a room, so i pay only about $400 a month .or a room host: are you getting by on that? caller: yes. i have my expenses down about as low as i can get them. kamala harris, what she said about half the people in this country could not afford a $400 hit to their income that was unbudgeted and that is exactly right. if you have a big expense, it is hard to come up with it. if my car breaks down, that can be a major problem. twitterre comments on
and facebook answering this question about what policies are needed to help the poor. andrew saying more federal policy creates more federal employees, no thanks to that. elizabeth warren has great detailed policies to help the middle class and poor. fred saying they need to focus on the american people and not all these other countries have refugees and illegal aliens. they don't want to be the world's police, we should not be the world's welfare office. mark sang education, universal health care -- tennessee, that line for those who make below $25,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning. i hate to be a naysayer, but i look at this from a different perspective of everybody else.
i am 67 years old and a retiree and worked pretty much all my life. i have been here in chattanooga by myself without any family for over 20 years. i have been homeless three or because ofhere about losing a job. you don't have anybody to fall back on for help, it is all on you. i had the experience. it is no fun. i am living now on less than $800 a month social security and ssi. every month they find a reason to cut my snap benefits. in snapn to $68 a month
benefits and with the price of have --ng up and when i what i have left after my rent, it takes two thirds of my income. i am paying $600 a month. i have about $170 a month left. that is all the toiletries and products you cannot buy with snap benefits. i am always at a loss at the end of the month. i live on a hill and i don't have any transportation. the bus line is close by, but it is down that hill. when i come home, if i am carrying groceries or anything else and i have to catch two buses and sometimes three because i live in a food desert. i have to go all the way across town to buy food and coming up blocks.l, it is 2.5 it is rough.
host: what do you do at the end of the month? you said you are always at a loss at the end of the month. caller: high start cutting back on things. i start losing weight every month. int: that is edgar tennessee. john is next out of boston on the line for those who make over $100,000 a year. good morning. me.er: bear with forgive me for saying this, but i only make $24,000 a year. i agree with edgar, you listen to an old american like myself. i am 74. edgar is what i call the old fashion american, just keep working and pounding away and doing what you do. i live in subsidized housing. i pay $600 a month rent.
someday i would hope i could have someone like ben carson because the guy is brilliant. one of the things he said and this goes directly to me is that old-fashioned americans work. that is what we knew. i am going to bore you with a quick story about being brought up from an italian family that came over here, my father at 14 years old working in a factory. his whole life. we were poor, but we learned the only way you keep your head above water is you work. from 14 years old on myself, right after my father, i am working 30 hours a week at 14 years old after school, weekends, to make ends meet and make something of myself and that happened through the years. i worked different jobs, sometimes working 60, 70 hours,
80 hours. whatever you have to do. i was punished by living in subsidized housing. i am happy, i have a roof over my head and stuff, but i started working part-time. i am 74 now and i was let go this past year. i was working with young people watchs job and just to the way young people think they have to have stuff handed out to them, they have to work. that is basically what we have to talk about in this country. up, keep proud, keep working hard. we curse the corporations that are not paying taxes, tax them they cant is fine spend a little bit more on taxes to help different programs and stuff like that.
give them some benefits. anybody, if you are making $12 an hour, give them a benefit. give them anything you can to make them proud of what they are doing. host: you said you worked from eight 14 or so to age 73 when you were let go and you are now living in subsidized housing, do you think the american dream is still alive, still possible in this country? caller: the american dream is alive. my american dream came true. my own fault, i ruined -- i was at one point where i was very, very well-off and one of the things that happened in this country, which has to be explained as i am an addict. i started gambling. i lost most of my whole life savings and i am telling you, john. i don't mean to bore you with all this, but it is coming from my heart, it was my fault, i blew my own life by gambling.
i ended up in subsidized housing -- i ended up losing the property i had, my family, my wife of 35 years because of that. that is my fault and you have to admit that when you screw up. along the way, i went from making -- at 14 years old $15 a week -- i used to give my mother $10 and i lived on the five dollars every week. i went up in my 20's and bought this dump of a house. i worked on it day and night, it was a three family house and i made a lot of money in my adult life, but i blew it. that is my fault. my point is people in this country -- the kids i worked with i would say, work some more hours. if i do, i lose my benefits i have got. we have a stigma on handing out stuff to people even though they
are working in the stigma is don't work. that is why i asked about ben carson. -- why are weent penalizing people in subsidized housing for working? i started working when i got in here and i was working 20, $30 a week and my rent went up $300 because i started making more money. why do you penalize people for working? host: that is john out of boston. thanks for sharing your story. maria in virginia, the line for those who make between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. good morning. maria, are you with us? caller: yes, i am here. good morning. how are you? host: i am doing well. go ahead, ma'am. caller: i believe the government should have a subsidized program because i make $35,000 to $55,000 and for me to make it, i
have to have two jobs. if people can have opportunities job like acertified certified nursing assistant, you make good money and you make benefits. i think people should avoid the minimum wage and go to school. i am a foreigner and i came here working three dollars an hour. today i am making $25 an hour. why? because i went to school. welfare programs should have a limit time, it is not a life, it should be a subsidized program. there should be a time limit and there should be welfare life only for handicapped people, not for people able to work. that is my take. take inis is steve's massachusetts on the line for those who make below $25,000 a year. good morning. caller: i think we are being taken for a ride by the welfare state industry and i think we
need to go back to a local based system. system.esigned such a we would elect locally and that could be a fire district, et cetera. i think a lot of the money we spend is going into the bureaucracy. whereas, if we were smart, we would work with things like farming and recycling and soil improvements and that would put . lot of people to work we need this system because it is really too costly to do it the way we are doing and this would be a competitive system that i have designed. fisheries would come in strongly. i have been on this show and i discussed fisheries. there is a lot of industries it could help out and help the poor. thank you very much.
host: what would the federal government do under your system? you see the areas where a role for the federal government? caller: number one, to pilot such systems in good it'll towns and good little communities who are kind of fed up with the bureaucracy. number two, to expand that, you would have mechanisms for theing that would phase out typical welfare state people. let's say you are poor and you have someone coming to pick you up and go grocery shopping and they are showing up in a mercedes-benz making $80,000 a year. church people can do this work. a lot of this work we are paying good money for and the pensions, et cetera, it is all these hordes of government workers. i have been in the system when they gave me a thrashing on my fishery management issue and they gave me about 8 major mental illnesses, so i am
disabled by the government because the government in massachusetts is so corrupt, you would not believe it. host: the question we ask, what federal policies, programs are needed to help the poor. here is a few more responses from facebook and twitter. shane writing none, there is nothing that gives congress or the president the power to write policies that help the poor or the rich. denise saying start with overpaid government officials. nate saying you cannot legislate people into prosperity. stanley saying less welfare, more work opportunities. we need to help the ones on welfare know it is a temporary thing. people rely too much on the government giving them so little and not being able to do anything in life. just a few of the comments this morning. about five minutes left in this segment to get your thoughts as well on phone lines split up by income level. david on the line for those who make between $25,000 and
$100,000 a year out of ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. americaant to point out seems to be stupid about doing the simple math. on 330 millionnt people and you only get like 12 or 13 million. we have a third of that here in ohio. it seems to me people aren't doing the math. you have a budget in the trillions, deficit in the ,rillions, gdp in the trillions a total worth in the quad trillions and yet people get uptight about $36 million they spend on this investigation. it is a drop in the budget, it is nothing. look out your window. it does anything look different from the turn of millennium or obama's second year or seventh year or trump's second year?
there is still the same amount of homeless, the same amount of people struggling and no one is addressing any of this. host: is there any presidential candidate running in 2020 that is addressing this? buter: bernie is trying to, it seems to me this next election is already lost, people are still voting for d's and r's and neither of those parties have any interest in helping us. democrats have had a majority in and wese for 6, 7 months are still fighting a drug war and foreign wars. these guys aren't interested in helping you, they are interested in painting a picture so you will vote for them so they can get in office and you can reap the benefits. host: want to show you this map from the census bureau, the 2017 poverty rate by state in the united states. percent,ll rate, 12.3
about 40 million people qualifying as living in poverty. the darker shaded states here are where there are more people concentrated living in poverty. as a deep purple, 18% of the state population or more in poverty. those states with the darkest shading. you can see and find your state on that map. those numbers coming from the census bureau. brian in somerville, pennsylvania, on the line for those who make low $25,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the last few callers excited me greatly, the comments are wonderful. i have two quick comments. one is a few years ago i was a small business owner, i got involved in renovating housing
and my experience with the welfare system was atrocious. corrupt.ulture, it is for some people it is a way of life. officials encouraged me to lower my standards of renovations in order to cater to the welfare system. i don't know if it is like that elsewhere, but that was my experience and in 2008, i lost everything, but my second -- my husband, we were married in 2015. the household makes a little bit more than 25, so i guess i am on the wrong line. my point is the house is paid ,or, we have a savings account
our car is paid for, we live for the means we need to. i am calling you on a flip phone . some of the callers were talking about the culture of give me, give me, give me or the work ethic and that is what needs to be addressed. the federal government can help these people best by helping them get back on their feet, education and job opportunities. president trump opened up the market out here, lots of people are hiring, there is not enough people to fill the positions. my husband actually job pay cut, but we are living better now. across thatto get somebody said you can't save money. my father taught me, we put away five dollars a week. plan, youve, you can
can hope. you don't have to rely on other people. for those who fall into the system, i feel for them. temporary. get through it. get up and get out again. i am very excited that people are very -- that people are talking about it. dignity, pull yourself up. the government can help by putting programs in place that industrialoff this -- i don't know what to call it. it is a system that feeds off the misery of people who are downtrodden. host: that is brian from pennsylvania, our last caller in this first segment. stick around, plenty more to come including the washington institute's dennis ross to talk about u.s. tensions with iran.
later a discussion on term limits with two individuals who will be testifying at a senate hearing on that topic. we will be right back. ♪ >> in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea, let viewers make up their own mind. c-span opened the doors to washington policy, bringing you all filtered, bring you all filtered contact content from congress and beyond. that big idea is more relevant than ever today, on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. brought to you as a public
service by your cable or satellite provider. forhe reviews are in c-span's the president spoke. it topped the new york times's new and noteworthy column. called a milepost in the evolving and ever-changing reputations of our presidents. from the new york journal of books, the presidents makes a fast and engrossing read. read about how did historians rank the best and worst presidents, from george washington to barack obama. the challenges they faced and the legacies they have left behind. c-span's the presidents is now available as a hardcover or e-book today. wherever books are sold. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion on iran with a man who has advised democratic or -- democratic and republican presidents on the middle east,
dennis ross. now a senior fellow at the washington institute. here is the headline on the front page of today's wall street journal. iranians threat to break nuclear order. trump orders another 1000 troops to the middle east after iran's warning on uranium. your reaction? guest: i am not surprised. the iranians two weeks ago said they were going to quadruple the amount of uranium they were going to be enriching. it was only a matter of time that they would exceed the were restricted to according to the iran nuclear deal. one thing to note. they have an argument that they will be able to make first at the u.s. is the one that withdrew from the accord. second, sanctions that the u.s. have been imposing have made it difficult for them to send their excess amount of materials out of the country.
in the past they were sending out the excess materials that stayed below the limit, getting --ural uranium so it difficult -- it makes it more difficult for the administration to say they are violating the limits of the agreement and we need to build more pressure on them. we are in a very complicated environment. host: you say pressure. explain what the maximum pressure strategy is and what the goals are. guest: i will tell you what i think the goals are because the administration in some respects has not been that clear. pressure is driven by if the iranians
are under pressure and the price is too high, they will look to come back to renegotiate. there is some logic to that because if you look historically, the iranians, when they have faced pressure from the outside that becomes too high, that can affect social peace within iran, they have looked for ways to reduce the pressure. leader of the islamic republic declared during the around -- during the iran -iraq war that it would never be open -- never be over. 1990's the iranian regime was assassinating dissidents in europe and the europeans threatened sanctions so they stopped doing that. 2003, when the u.s. defeated the iraqi military and the iranians
thought they were next, suddenly they were prepared to make proposals that were very far-reaching in terms of not only their nuclear program but also in terms of cutting off military support to hamas. the bush administration tested that. administration, when the iranians said we will not negotiate on our nuclear program so long as we are under sanctions and the administration tripled down on the sanctions and they negotiated. you can debate whether they should have or not but you cannot debate the reality that the irani and say they will never give in to pressure and historically they have. the logic of maximum pressure is to try and play on that. the a problem with that is you need to give them a way out. says they will apply
to deny it, to say we did not do it. this potentially could disrupt the flow of oil and raise the price of oil, which from their perspective when they can sell less and less oil, pushing the price up is good for them. interestshat american could be in jeopardy and that american friends could be under threat and the iranians do it indirectly, so the fingerprints are hard to identify. they don't create the kind of provocation that is easier to justify a response, and because the administration does not have great relations with our allies, partly the result of if you berate our allies, don't be surprised if you call them they are not willing to answer the phone. because of that, we don't have a coalescence of support for the charges we are making against iran. i believe the administration is
right. the iranians did this. didn't andying they the rest of the world is not so quick to embrace the american position. host: you can call in now. republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. ambassador dennis ross with us until the bottom of the hour. do you expect more ship attacks in the coming weeks? guest: i do think we are likely to see more but the iranians may wait to test the temperature and see what is going on. they made standpoint, the point that they could resume this at any juncture. the risk is they miscalculated. we don't have direct conversations with the iranians. it is hard to try and reduce
what could be misperceptions on their part or our part. right now they believe they have us on our back foot and we don't have an easy response. that the secretary of state says we are going to continue with our diplomatic and economic approach. obviously that has not prevented this in the first place. we don't have allies rushing to us other than the british. the only country outside the region of america's traditional allies in europe or asia that has said that they agree with us was the british. absent that, it does not create a context for the u.s. to be doing a lot more. at this point, the iranians feel we have the americans on the back foot, we can go after ships again or we can do something else and test to see what the limits of the american response is likely to be. the key for the iranians and this is where they could overplay their hand. -- even if the
europeans feel a lot of this is a response to the united states, they will have a hard time not doing anything. if they do nothing in the face of breaching the limits, even if -- right nowmental anticipating attacks that i not .e surprised [video clip] -- theook over administration has allowed iran to accrue enormous wealth and this is where the trump administration came in. we withdrew from the deal and
put in place and economic pressure campaign. we have a ban on a number of petrochemical companies just this past week. president trump is that everything he can to avoid war. we have done what we can to deter this. guest: what the administration it to pressure on -- administration has done is put a lot of pressure on iran. what the administration did not do is think about what they may do in response. i think we were caught .lat-footed by that rossr: i wanted to ask mr. about a comment his fellow at
the washington institute made about using covert operations to initiate aggressive warfare towards iran. i would like to educate the c-span viewers about the context and background. this is basically the israel lobby. mr. ross was identified as israel's lawyer when he was in the state department. if people go and watch the film the israel lobby, it shows that the ministry of strategic workingin israel is with certain institutions in the united states of america to wage information warfare against even jewish-american and other activists of palestinian solidarity. host: you made your point. ambassador ross, a chance to talk about the institute's middle east policy. guest: the policy is a nonpartisan think tank.
wide variety of scholars covering every issue in the middle east. terror, arab-israel politics, turkey, iran. there are a variety of different viewpoints but if it is going to be an effective think tank, it has to have a certain dynamism. it does not have one point of view. what the caller suggests does not hit the reality. host: we mentioned you advised several different presidents. which administrations? guest: i was a political appointee for reagan and bush and clinton and obama. i am an extinct species. host: our next caller is from massachusetts, democrat. caller: good morning. the whole thing smells like a false flag. the japanese prime minister was
visiting iran. what advantage would iran have in damaging a japanese supply ship? superpower but i'm sure they have missiles. if they chose to, they could blow up or sink those ships, but a small amount of damage like the japanese ambassador was having a conference with the leader there. to what advantage -- how does this benefit iran? this situation? thank you. wast: let's note that it the japanese prime minister meeting with the supreme leader at that time. have a system that is dual habit. you have a government and the revolutionary guard. frequently the revolutionary
guard took actions that were not authorized by the leadership. i am not saying that is the case this time around but the fact is, if you want to send a signal, then you can create all sorts of problems. you want to do it in a way that is not going to be constrained and you even happened to hit a japanese tanker. of easyhis is a kind way for you to do it. it fits the style of the revolutionary guard. you don't take credit for these kinds of things but you send a message and drive insurance rates up. you don't have to sink the ships to make your point. seeking the ships creates its own set of problems. -- sinking the ships creates its own set of problems. they acted in a way that shows they have all sorts of options and activities they could undertake. in a strange way, doing it with
the prime minister there signals we will do what we want when we want it. host: first caller -- both callers suspicious of false flag operations. does that surprise you? guest: there is a lot of distrust. the british are the only american ally outside the region to come out and say the iranians did this. it suggests there is a lot of suspicion out there. part of this is there is just meant a lot of trust in the trump administration. what you are seeing on the outside is reflected from the two callers to mystically. host: michael is in texas, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. dealing with the iranians seems to be a little bit like dealing with isis. for a long time, the administration prior to trump
seemed to be dillydallying while isis grew stronger and stronger and more threatening. then, suddenly that reversed and isis was basically eradicated. iraniansto me that the don't follow the playbook. it is this cowardice and terrorism, brutality and ignorance and i just wonder if a strategy like what was used against isis would work against them. it,: to put a fine point on are you talking about military intervention? we lost michael but go ahead. guest: i think that is what he was talking about. aren't think the situations analogous. to bealthough they claim the islamic state, was not a country. to put this in perspective, what the trump administration did is
basically follow what was the same basic approach that the obama administration has adopted. it is true the obama administration was late to pick up what were the indications that isis was emerging, but when it did adopt a strategy, it adopted a strategy where it identified a local partner on the ground, in this case democratic forces in syria and the iraqi military. we did a lot of the intelligence and bombing, but they did what was the real fighting on the ground. you don't have quite the equivalent when it comes to iran number one. number two, when the trump administration came in, the only real changes they made from the strategy adopted by the obama administration toward isis was to give the commanders in the field much greater leeway. where us in a position the local commanders could directly use force without having it in a sense vetted in
washington, d.c. that created more leeway in the fighting but it was basically the same strategy pursued with greater intensity. , you areof iran dealing with a real country and it is a rogue country. has toissinger said iran decide if it is a country or a cause and what i described before, there is a duality. it has a president and a foreign minister and the foreign minister speaks very fluent english. very well spoken. he denies anything the revolutionary guard was doing. we had information that the iranians, even though the president was a reformist and had no interest in it, we had information that the ruble -- revolutionary guard was
butiding not just the means rewards for hamas and islamic jihad to kill more israelis. at the same time we were trying to negotiate. the president of iran was saying we will support whatever the palestinians agree to. there was this duality of a government that seeks to be normal and the revolutionary guard that seeks to expand and extend the iranian influence and ideology. dealing with that requires case, whent in any you engage in diplomacy, if you corner somebody, then don't expect that they will respond the way you want them to. the key is, how do you strike the right balance of putting enough pressure on them and especially with the revolutionary guard, the price is high but you leave them a way out. host: what should be open right now? guest: president trump keeps
saying he wants to talk to them. --made it clear he is about he is not about regime change. he was about no nukes. is a very weapons vague standard to try to meet. if you ask president obama, he said the jcpoa was designed to ensure no nukes. president trump just wants to have a deal that is better than what obama has. that seemed to be the sole criteria. secretary pompeo laid out conditions which were effectively conditions for negotiations but now he says there are no preconditions for negotiations. i don't know what would constitute a deal. if president trump could get something better than obama, they were subset provisions, limitations that would lapse in 2030. if he could get those extended, i think he would take that deal. whether or not that is a deal that should be struck is a
different question but at some point there'll need to be in negotiation. the iranians now want to make a point. put maximum pressure on us, we will put maximum pressure on you. we will soften you up. at some point i think they will also turn to negotiations but they will not want to do it directly, they will want to do it through someone else. from japanter abe was they are to fit that role but he is the wrong player -- was there to fit that role but he is the wrong player. i believe there is a hypermobility that the iranians will at some point turn to the russians or the russians will approach them and you can see vladimir putin being the one who comes to president trump and says i have a deal for you. host: virginia is next, richard, a democrat. anyone i am wondering if
--embers back in vietnam this man is setting us up to get into another confrontation with another country. , whong about negotiations in the world would want to negotiate with the most corrupt and scumbag that we have ever had in the white house? host: richard out of woodbridge, virginia. guest: he raised the gulf of tonkin. event bya contrived the johnson administration, designed to create a justification for us to escalate what we were doing in vietnam. i don't see this as a parallel. the trump administration, whatever one thinks of his policies, he was applying maximum pressure. from his standpoint it was working because the iranian economy is being squeezed. devaluedncy has been
by about 60%. iranians have been completely devalued. the price of normal goods have skyrocketed. life is becoming very difficult within iran. the whole idea from the trauma administration was make it difficult enough that they will come back to us and we can negotiate better terms. what i was saying before, the iranians are trying to create pressure on us that will get us to find a way to back off as well. both sides are applying maximum pressure with an eye on getting into negotiation. the danger is miscalculation in advance. host: we showed that video of the suspected iranian mines being removed. was it a good idea to release that video? that thishink administration has a case to make. the question is whether or not it might have made more sense to
quietly go and share all the intelligence with key allies privately first and work out with them, statements they might make so that by putting this out first and it is grainy and it is subject to different interpretations. but maybewere there, they were there and saw the mine and thought they should take that off the ship. i have no doubt that the iranians did this. if you listen to people like adam schiff, only intelligence committee in the house, obviously a critic of the trump administration, he has no doubt the iranians did this. the question comes back to because the trumpet administration does not have a lot of credibility internationally, it makes -- it raises the bar for what it has to do to convince others. it requires it to be more careful in terms of when it is
going to release information. he needs to do its homework in advance with others. host: baltimore, maryland. sean, independent. caller: good morning. i have two questions. first, would we really be in this mess with iran had eisenhower and dulles not help stage a good -- a coup d'etat on the the 50's democratically elected president of iran? they overthrew him in the 50's. my second question is, did the japanese owner of the tanker that got damaged by the alleged explosion, what he is saying contradicts what pompeo and the u.s. officials are saying. he is saying that his ship got damaged by something flying over , something about a projectile
hitting his ship from the air. that makes it seem suspicious. could it be iran? possibly but when you hear the owner of the tanker, that is his, he is saying it is something different. that makes this whole thing seem shady like the previous caller said about the gulf of tonkin. host: thank you for the questions. context where you have an administration whose word is not well trusted internationally lends itself to different interpretations and when you have the owner of the ship saying the crewmembers said there was a flying projectile that caused this, if you look at the damage from the ship, it does not seem to fit that explanation either. the damage to the hall seems to fit the explanation that it was a mine. i think the first part of the question was the u.s. in the
british that were responsible for bringing the back into power. most of it was the prime minister and he was ousted. would we be in the same position? 1979. in power until you have the islamic republic the cayman and went through real turmoil in the first couple of years, killing lots of iranians by the way. revolution,h of the there was a hunt for counterrevolutionaries. they still focus heavily on the recall, the used to british are pulling the strings of the americans, they still find them somehow the archenemy
but i think the fact is, you have a regime that has a view of the world that also believes it is entitled to dominate the middle east. the iranians tend to look down on the arabs and think they should dominate the middle east. they say israel should not exist. they employ terror. to say it is only because of what the u.s. did in fact eisenhower administration is a reason we still have a problem. that suggests there is too much of a deterministic approach to international relations and foreign policy. we have in a rainy and regime that -- we have been a rainy and regime -- an iranian real politics taking place not between moderates and conservatives. those terms don't apply. you have pragmatists in the iranian leadership and what is
known as the principal lists -- principalists. believe what happens outside justifies for control of the economy. -- further control of the economy. it strengthens their position of control and power. the pragmatists believe the islamic republic is more than likely to survive if it is not a confrontation with everyone else on the outside. it is not that they don't believe in having an islamic republic, but they believe if you have a more normal relationship with the rest of the world, you have more capacity to flourish and that will build legitimacy for the regime. you have a real struggle. they have really lee politics. -- real elite politics. one has to take into account those politics. host: one more call. catherine is in ohio, a democrat. caller: good morning. my question is this. this administration does not
know how to speak to people. he will openly castrate anybody, individual, even a person on his staff. if you think in your mind that this man has the ability or even the will to speak to the iranians or any other muslim country, he can't even speak to most americans because he thinks he is an emperor or king. he likes oligarchs. he likes to openly humiliate people. when you are trying to come up with logical thinking from this administration, it is the last thing on his mind. he does not know how to speak to people. even people who are his equal. the only people he idolizes is utin from- is p russia, the man from north
korea, the man from turkey when his people came into this country and beat americans up. he liked that. host: let us catherine on president trump as a negotiator and dealmaker. guest: he obviously sees himself as a dealmaker. we are still waiting to see examples of it. will -- he would like to be the one who strikes a deal but the deal has to, in his mind, he has to do better than obama did. the problem at this point is he is doing it largely alone. the fact is if you really want to be able to move the iranians, you have to have the whole world with you. you have to have them isolated. the iranians also have to see not just what they lose but also what they get. trump clearly understands instinctively because when he was in japan and afterwards, he asserted talking about what iran could gain -- he started talking
about what iran could gain. he understands he has to offer them something. the whole logic of maximum pressure as he sees it was to try and bring them around to the table. what i have tried to suggest is the iranians have adopted a mirrored posture towards us and that can lead towards a negotiation at some point but it can also lead to a conflict if one or both parties miscalculate. formerennis ross, a ambassador, thank you so much for your time this morning. up next this morning, speaking of president trump, a tweet from the president getting a lot of attention, saying next week, ice will begin the process of removing millions of illegal aliens from this country. we are getting your reaction to that tweet in our next half-hour. you can start calling in on phone lines, republicans,
democrats and independents. we will take your calls when we come back. ♪ >> the reviews are in for c-span's the president's book -- the presidents book. in thee milepost evolving and ever-changing reputations of our presidents. from the new york journal of books, the presidents makes a fast and engrossing read. read about how notable presidential historians ranked the best and worst presidents from george washington to barack obama. the challenges they faced and the legacies they left behind. c-span's the presidents is available as a hardcover or e-book today wherever books are sold.
>> oh do i look forward to running against them. >> tonight, president donald trump hold a rally in orlando, florida, officially launching his run for a second term. watch live on c-span two, online on c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: taking your phone calls this morning on a couple tweets from the president. here is what the president had to say. announcing next week, ice will begin the process of
removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the united seats. they will be -- united states. they will be removed as fast as they come in. mexico is doing a very good job of stopping people long before they get to our southern border. guatemala is getting ready to
sign a third agreement. the only ones who won't do anything are democrats in congress. they must vote to get
rid of the loopholes and fix asylum. that was the president on twitter last night. getting your reaction to that tweet. republicans, (202)-748-8001. (202)-748-8000 democrats, -- democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. the washington post and their story about that pair of tweets notes that large-scale immigrations and customs enforcement operations are typically kept secret to avoid tipping off their targets. back in 2018 the president and other senior officials threaten the mayor of oakland, california with criminal prosecution for alerting city residents that immigration raids were in the works. back then, president trump and stephen miller had been plotting with the immigration department
-- orders were expedited by the justice department earlier this year, back in april, the acting ice director and homeland security secretary kiersten nielsen were ousted after they hesitated to go forward with the plan, expressing concerns about preparation, its effectiveness and the risk of public outrage from images of migrant children being taken into custody or separated from their families. the washington post talking about some of the history of announcing large-scale enforcement operations when it comes to deportation. we are getting your reaction this morning. phone lines for republicans, democrats and independents as usual. gerrit is first out of philadelphia, democrat. (202)-748-8001 good morning -- caller: good morning. it concerns me that ice is going to be deporting millions of undocumented immigrants in this country. they are a crucial component,
not just for our society at large but to our economy. especially given that we are coming up to a time when the census is about to be held and there is a question of whether or not we are going to put a citizen six question -- a citizenship question there, it will continue making these people go into the shadows rather than coming out and trying to seek legal means of obtaining documentation. host: thank you for the call. our next caller is from alabama, republican. caller: i don't wish any hardship on anyone, anybody here, any immigrant. but we as americans should take of them -- should take care of americans first. we have children and we have families and we have elderly here that were born and raised to livet are struggling
month-to-month and we should not have to keep those people up. i don't understand. can someone explain to me why it is always the democrats that want all of these people over here? we cannot keep these people up. there is no way. i just pray that everybody wakes up. that's all you can do. thank you for taking my call. host: susan in maryland, independent. caller: hello? host: hi jason. caller: honestly i think that despite the president's assertion that millions will be removed, i seriously doubt that anywhere near that will be removed because it removes the issue. once the issue is resolved, he can't use it as a rallying cry we've got so-and-so
number of illegal immigrants and you have to elect me. once the issue is resolved, he does not have that anymore. host: the president tweeting last night that ice will begin deporting quote, millions next week and according to the los angeles times, they are reporting about the tweet. an official said the effort was focused on people who had been issued final deportation orders by federal judges but remained at large in the united states. that is who ice will be focusing on starting next week. getting your reaction. larry in minnesota, democrat. caller: good morning. i am calling about the so-called sanctuary cities thing. first of all, the definition of a sanctuary city is a republican ruse. sanctuary cities are cities that refuse to spend the resources doing ice's job for them.
that is all it is. it has nothing to do with actually trying to harbor illegal aliens. it has to do with they are not going to do the governments job for them because the government does not reinforce -- reimburse them. , thatr previous segment video is ridiculous. who in the hell took it? where were they and how did they take it? there is no way that is actually a video that was not staged. we are focusing on the deportation conversation that the president started with a couple of tweets last night. john in florida, republican. caller: i am a naturalized citizen who earned his citizenship through service in the military. i feel like having to go through
that process to get your citizenship, also legal acceptance into this country, and accountability for criminals that are also in our justice, why are -- justice systems, while we paying? we have emigrated into this country with legal sound -- with legal statuses. have to payitizens for people in this country that are not working? to me it seems like we all as citizens should come together to figure out why we are making the backbone of this country paper people that do not want to follow our laws. first of all, if you enter this
country illegally, you are automatically a criminal in the united states of america. host: that is john out of florida. on the number of people entering this country illegally, this is a story from the washington post. the number of migrant families crossing the border has been falling in recent weeks according to the u.s. customs and border protection. authorities detained more than 85,000 families on the border in may. that number has declined about hurting percent since the beginning of june. during which president trump threatened to impose tariffs on mexico and the government of mexico's president, and which an agreement was reached to have an immigration crackdown in mexico. u.s. officials say they are expecting a 20% decline in border arrests from may when authorities detained more than
144,000. california,f independent. caller: yes. i appreciate you taking my call. i wanted to say that i wish them all the best luck in getting all of the illegal immigrants rounded up and put back in the countries of their origin. oflso think that some type reinforcement at the borders to stop the influx of the illegals from wherever they are coming from is also needed. thank you. host: beverly in pennsylvania. democrat. caller: good morning. i am calling -- i am 60 years old and i grew up in a rural in -- rural area in pennsylvania as a kid and i met many immigrants
that came to work in our fields. they have come here for a long time and work for peanuts, putting food on our table. somewhere along the line, i don't know which president, change the way you came into america -- changed the way you came into america. when you call anything today, it is either mexican or american. i believe that when people came to this country years ago, they were to learn the english language and it the terse people in a way. people come here and work in hotels, they work for nothing but there should be a way to make it so they do as americans do and so do other people that come to this country should do the same. that's about it. host: that is beverly out of pennsylvania. having this conversation about a pair of tweets from the
president last night announcing ice is going to begin deporting quote millions. our phone lines for republicans, democrats and independents as usual. here is another tweet from the president this morning saying the fake news media does not report it but republican enthusiasm is at an all-time high. look at what is going on in orlando, florida right now. people have never seen anything like it unless you play a guitar. the president referring to his official campaign 2020 reelection kickoff happening in orlando, florida this evening. for more on that topic we are joined by a reporter for politico, playbook florida. orlando for the announcement? because without florida it is really hard to win reelection. in a way, florida is now his de
facto home state. he has been here a lot. he has been here at least 100 times since becoming president. he comes down to go to mar-a-lago in palm beach. that florida is very important to the reelection strategy and the reason he picked orlando is because if you want to win florida, you need to pick up the votes in the i-4 corridor. while he is going to be appearing in orlando which is itself in a democratically controlled county, all the suburban areas around orlando are republican and just up the road is a place called the villages, a mega-retirement community, heavily republican. host: what we know about that election kickoff? who is going to be introducing the president? who else is going to be there? expect a lot of the
florida political universe to be there although it has been unclear as to what their role is going to be. governor desantis is going to be there, senator rubio. they are all going to be on hand. another thing to note is that they are squeezing in some fundraisers around this trip. they will have one right before the rally. then he is going to go down to miami and have another big in whichr tomorrow they have already estimated they will raise $4 million. they are going to be raising money and rallying up the base. as you have noted, a lot of people will show up and there will be a counter rally. there will be the trump baby balloons. it is going to be quite the show. i'm sure the television cameras are going to love it. host: you mentioned the new governor and senator scott as well. tell us what the 2018 election tells us about the trends in
florida as we look ahead to how the state will go in 2020. guest: 2018 was an interesting twist for florida. a much higher turnout than anyone anticipated in terms of the way it goes for a midterm election. in the end, the publicans were able to get out the vote and they had an election day surge that overwhelmed the advantage the democrats had in places like early voting and things like that. that is what we have to look at. what happened to 2016 was a bit remarkable even for florida because president trump florida by nearly 113,000 votes. hillary clinton did better than obama did in 2008 and 2012 and that is to be expected because the state continues to grow but she still did much better but still lost because the republican turnout in 2016 --
there were some counties in florida, very republican counties that had monster turnouts. the countyent -- where naples is in the former -- and governor scott is formally from, they had a 90% turnout. other places in central florida they also had large turnouts. 2018, andrewn gillum got a lot of people out and got people to vote in a midterm that did not vote before but it was not quite enough and that is what we are looking at in terms of 2020, will the republicans be able to once again get this massive turnout of voters who may be in the past were not voting? host: are you going to be in orlando tonight? any chance to interview some of
those folks who have been camping out for what will be about 40 hours by the time the rally kicks off? guest: i will not be on the ground in orlando. i will be watching everything. we have a lot of political colleagues who are following the president who are going to be there. is,ink the thing about it certainly the floridians i have seen and talked to in the last two years, they are still very loyal to the president and very much have not wavered in that support. i think what has been challenging to them as far as we seen is not changing in the panhandle which was always a republican area, even though there was this dustup over hurricane michael relief, at the end of the day, it does not seem like it has affected the support people have for the president. fine gary find out -- very
reporter forut, the political playbook florida. guest: thank you for having me. host: the rally starts tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. you can go to our website, c-span.org to see if there. you can also listen to it on the free c-span radio app as part of our road to the white house coverage 2020. back to your phone calls this morning. getting your thoughts on president trump's tweets last night saying he is going to begin deporting millions next week. tom in california, republican. thanks for waiting. caller: it is not enough. in southern california, we have l.a. county and orange county 1.4we have identified million illegal aliens that have come here illegally. they need to be removed.
we have a state that fights against everything. they have a statewide refugee resettlement program in every single county. havehe people there hispanic surnames in the los angeles -- our l.a. city school is 76% hispanic. we have been overwhelmed. 80% of theo lapd, 200 most wanted r hispanic. we are not against hispanic people for crying out loud, but you have to obey the laws. people,ty of 4 million our school budget is $7.5 billion. is $8.8's budget billion. a majority of this is supporting people who are here and do not work and come here illegally.
if they want to come here illegally, go back and come back the right way. our legislators are working against and discriminating against americans with these sanctuary cities. i do wish that trump would come here. we have a coliseum that would seat 100,000. it is not my home. i was more in and raised here 1802y family came here in as indentured service -- indentured servants. i love this country but our politicians have to obey their oath to protect this country and the democratic party in california, we were gerrymandered into the situation. we are at the mercy of the democrats. host: that is tom in california. this is christina in michigan, independent. caller: good morning and thank you for letting me talk on c-span.
issues.wo does all of this deportation include people who are overstaying their visas? they also come here illegally but they do not come from countries south of the border. my second point is, all of these people, especially republicans who are so religious, i want to hear what they hear when they go to church because they are not practicing christianity. they are not following christ. they are following trump, who is a godless man and an immoral man and an awful human being and people should think about that if they are thinking about the afterlife. if they are true christians, they would never be following trump who is nothing but a hatemonger. they choose trump over christianity, over christ, i want to know what to they hear in their churches that they go to all the time?
host: to your first question on who this will focus on, the l.a. times reporting a response to the president's tweets that a official said the effort, the deportation effort he was referring to would focus on people who have been issued final deportation orders by federal judges but still remain at large in the united states. the president saying ice will begin deporting millions starting next week. democrat. caller: good morning. i am a democrat which means nothing because i vote both ways but i read the mueller report and i have watched trump and trump escalated that problem at the border with his rhetoric and his threats, which when you threaten people of course they get scared and they run to the border. if you would read that mueller report, we have even larger
problems in the united states. that investigation started in 2014 and the campaigns when they started, they were made aware of this russian invasion. trump's organization and i am speaking of the entire because i cannot name the wall -- name them all, welcomed all of his help from them and then during their transition, continued through back channels to even recommend to trump who his appointees should be, especially for our international. this man has no negotiation issues. this little white piece of paper he held up in the air, all of it -- all it has was a letterhead. you could see it in the sun. it would certainly not be solid white. host: this is gabriel in
maryland, republican. caller: good morning. a pleasure to be on c-span. thank you for the services you provide. i am calling because i have a request for the president that rather than focusing on deporting people who are already here, focus on immigration reform and building the wall which will be a positive solution and would not separate andnts from children, mainly remove the threshold that we have on immigration. wall so that it power. we can sell that to mexico and the rest of the world. we can allow people to come, as many as who want to come.
we can use them as the resource they are. bottom,ut the top and rather than just exploiting them for slave labor or wage slave labor. that is about it. i have got anecdotes that you probably don't want to hear. host: we have just a little bit of time. kevin is next in washington, d.c., independent. caller: good morning. progressive, int want to remind people what this country looks like prior to the settlers coming here. the settlers who came here from fleeing aey came horrible economy. it was overpopulated in europe. when they came to this country, they were the illegals.
many of their ancestors, who are calling on to this phone, they were illegal, and they committed human atrocity to get rid of people who were living here on this land. many of those people on this land were not just native americans. they were also mexicans. many of the descendents from the places that we know call mexico were originally the people who were on this land be more the settlers came here and committed human atrocities to make this land what it is today. until america addresses its original sin, that original sin. is in the context of our immigration solution. we will continue to be a cursed nation. en in oceanside, new york,
republican. caller: i would just like to rebut that. look at what we have done in such a short time. god's blessings rain down on america. everybody has an issue, and we straighten them out. we forge forward together. like in our military, all american, it is about time they start cleaning up because i run a construction company. i have been on the show many times. i may merchant marine officer. merchant marine credentials hang in front of me. my business, i would never hide and illegal. i don't care what color you are. i need to hire people, not lose my business. other companies do that. they risk that. they undercut me. , on expired 9/11 leases, these men flew into the
towers. i lost friends on that day. i don't know her this last gentleman lives, but maybe pennsylvania or the pentagon or see what happened on 9/11 directly because of expired visas and lacks a days ago, inept politicians that do not get nothing done. thank god for president trump. i hope they start deporting 10 million tomorrow. host: good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. i can hear you. it feels like the number of undocumented people here is 10 million to 20 million. the idea of running them all up even considering what you mentioned about the most extreme cases, it is hard to picture that being in the millions.
it is more likely that this is just trumps way. sometimes he does that by making plans that do not turn out. just a quick thought on the question of doing it the right way. that is iting about seems like it reduces being an youican citizen to how fast or if you were born on the side of the border or not. i think it reduces being american. that is all. host: one last call, john in florida. democrat. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i have had the misfortune to run into him three times in new york, once at the building site at trump towers where he did not want to hire any union guys and
made promises to union delegates if they didand comply with him, he would renege the deal and call the fbi. fbiwore he never called the for anything. this guy has been a liar. he has been against union labor for years. he has put people that have had businesses and their families for two or three generations totally out of business. he will get somebody to do the job. the job is done wonderfully. what he does is he doesn't pay them. they have to take them to court. they get a nickel on a dollar. they go bottom-up. that is john, our last caller on this segment. stick around. we will be talking about term
a milepost and ever-changing milepost of our presidents. it makes a fast and engrossing read. read about how noted presidential historians rank the best and worst chief historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, the challenges they faced and the legacies they have left behind. it is now available as a hardcover or e-book today. >> of old do i look forward to running against them. trump holds aald rally in florida, officially launching his run for a second term. watch online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app.
the complete guide to congress is now available. it has left to details about the house and the senate. contact information about every senator and representative. information about congressional committees, state governors, and the cabinet. the 2019 congressional directory is a handy spiral-bound guide. order your copy from the c-span online store. washington journal continues. host: later this afternoon, a senate judiciary subcommittee will hold a hearing on term limits and two of the witnesses will be testifying at that anding, casey burgat neck tomboulides. they will be with us in this final hour of the washington journal as we talk about term limits and take your calls.
if you support term limits, you can start calling in now if you moments, (202) 748-8001. start us off. what are u.s. term limits? limits is aterm nonprofit organization that fights for term limits for all members of government. we are basically focusing on this issue because the american people are frustrated. they are fed up with a congress that falls short of what a great country like ours deserves. ask americans, 60% of them say they would fire every single member of congress if they could. congress has a 14% approval rating and a 98% reelection rate. that is the sign of a broken system. when people run for office in this city, they call it the
swamp. when they get here, it becomes like a hot tub. they start to enjoy the power in the prestige. they never want to go home. they never want to go back and talk to their constituents. we have disastrous policies as a result of career politicians running this country. we have $22 trillion in debt. we have the longest war in american history. broken health care, broken immigration. we have record levels of dysfunction and hyper partisan. that problem solve by doing the same thing over and over again. that is why 82% of americans support term limits. this is not a new idea. we have term limits on 36 governors, 15 state legislatures, nine of the 10 largest cities, and chicago is coming soon. the president of the united states has term limits. special about
congress that they should be able to serve for life? host: can you answer that question? guest: i will start by saying we are in an interesting position because term limits are incredibly popular. people are fed up with congress. it is broken. it doesn't work. it is dysfunctional and partisan. term limits are such a jacobian measure that automatically kick out the best amongst us just to get rid of the worst. is a't know if that particularly good investment when we are talking about congress when there is no school for this. governing is incredibly hard. we run a $4.1 trillion federal budget that if you are sworn in on a monday, i don't know how you're going to be effective overseeing that on tuesday. the president does have term limits. that is the 22nd amendment that was added after the original constitution. i think congress is different in that the president is a singular
figure. there is no one figure in the congress that has as much power as the commander in chief. the president is fundamentally different than members of congress. turning to the 98% reelection rate, we have a lot of members that run for reelection, but the point is they ran and they won. when we talk about 98% reelection, that is different when you look at people who do not decide to run for reelection. that number goes down. the 2018 midterms, we elected at 100 new members of the house. a lot of points experience matters in policymaking. reagani think ronald when he said the only experience you get in politics is how to be political.
we have the most careerist congress in history, and the results are a dumpster fire. we are not getting our money's worth out of career politicians running the show now. congress is not very diverse. in majority of members of congress are lawyers and professional politicians. how does that qualify you to be an expert on health care or banking or so many other issues that congress is tasked with governing? if we went to term limits with a citizen legislature, we would get people from all walks of life, real subject matter experts that could come in and tackle these issues. the constant emphasis on reelection is very corrosive to congress. instead of getting policy expertise, instead of actually reading the 1000 page bills we hear about all the time on the news, they are busy campaigning. the average congressman spends five hours a day in a call center on a telephone begging
for money from big donors so that they can get reelected or pay off their party to get a prime spot on the committee. that is a distraction from your job. host: when they run for reelection, they usually win. the reelection rate for those members of congress who ran for reelection was 91%. secrets.bers from open the senate is not quite as guaranteed. it was 84% in 2018. you can see the chart from open secrets.org. they have pledge that they hope members of congress will sign. why is it that specific term limit? we obviously need the
term limits. the status quo is not working. with respect to why that pacific limit, the house and the senate were not originally intended to be the same type of chamber. the house was supposed to be a lot more populist and closer to the people. that is why the term is only two years. there was intended to be a lot of turnover in the house. the senate was supposed to be more deliberative, modeled after the house of lords. six years in the house, 12 years in the senate is more than enough time to make your mark in washington, d.c. if you cannot get your job done in 18 years, you have no business in washington. limits drainurn the swamp? guest: absolutely not. when you are elected and don't know how to run the country, you don't know how to appropriate such a large government budget across a host of government
programs, which i admit a lot of them are broken, if you come in with an expense, you are going to do what we all do, ask someone else for help your washington, d.c., is a culture of information sources who help people govern, and those come with partisan agendas. you ask these people that you trust, and that comes with a partisan agenda. that is why we turn to special interests. studies have shown that deference outside the chamber to special interest groups, to the governor, to the executive, to the federal agencies that congresses passing goes up and harms the public because bureaucrats are not elected. those are the cases against and for term limits. you will hear more about it today if you tune into c-span.org. the constitution subcommittee of the senate judiciary committee
will be holding a hearing on this topic, term limits and the u.s. congress. that starts at 3:30. these gentlemen will be testifying at that hearing. you will not be able to ask them questions this afternoon. you can now. forphone lines are set up those who support and those who oppose term limits. opposest of connecticut term limits. why is that? caller: two reasons. i admit we have a problem with constantly sending some people who are not serving the public back to congress, but i believe the way to eliminate that is why publicly funded elections. way we pay for the bill, we reinstate the fair act where they get equal tv time, and we get what we pay for. my other reason is i happen to
have a very good congressperson. she is out at grocery stores. she personally helped me during the mortgage crisis. she does good work. i don't know what other profession we would want to send people where we punish them for doing good work. host: who is your member? guest: rosa delauro. that lady works. she works with the people. you want to call her a professional politician, you can do that, but she serves the people. host: thank you for. -- thank you for the call. she does not want to throw out your member of congress. if you want to keep your member of congress in power for life, you are not a term limits supporter. we have disagreements on this issue. you probably agree with 10% of americans who think we do not agree. i will tell you why 82% of
americans support it somewhat. we want the ability to reelect our own congressman, but we don't want them to be so out of step touch that they lose connection with their constituents. by the way, term limits are not an unusual idea. we already term limit the presidency. there are folks in our country who have a great affinity for president obama or president trump, and you don't hear these people saying let's repeal presidential term limits because they understand it is healthy for our republic. the same is true for congress. there are definitely some good members of congress, but they are more than outweighed by members of congress who are responding to the wrong incentive, incentive to stay in power. we have a caller out of maryland. good morning.
i support the idea of term limits. i think an idea in congress can be that why solve a problem and you can run on the issue indefinitely? i wonder if both guests and comment on what they think fixing gerrymandering would do to this issue? arnold schwarzenegger talk about steps he took in california. it seems like those steps helped to make seats much more competitive and maybe took away the need to have term limits. guest: great question. of whatds to the point members of congress do in their time with no term limits. there are other steps we can take that don't involve draconian steps like kicking someone out of office even though the vast majority of voters support you.
if your voters support you, let them decide. of whatthat is the best our representative democracy is. if you are mad at money in politics, let's fix money in politics. these are issues we can fix. little evidence to believe that fresh members are more likely to support these things. before they are ineligible, they have been more focused on reelection activity or just as focused on reelection activity as members of congress with no term limit. it is only when they reach that time horizon that they become less interested studies show that electoral connection, when that is severed, they care less about their constituents concerns. they are more likely to think best for me. they do not face the accountability measures that
elections provide. i think we have congressman who do not listen to us now as a result of being so invincible at the ballot box. 98% of incumbents are reelected every two years to you realize our country actually has an epidemic of uncompetitive elections. every two years for congress, over 80% of incumbents are either totally on imposed or under opposed. election,unning for but they have an opponent that is not running a serious campaign. they cakewalk acting to those districts. rosa delauro was mentioned before. she is a congresswoman and a heavily democratic district who has not had a primary challenger in 10 years. we have 10% of congressional elections on average that are unopposed every two years. how do you vote your incumbent out when there is no one else on the ballot?
before we passed term limits in florida, we had an election cycle in which more than half of the elections were canceled because incumbents were too powerful. the power of incumbency has a chilling effect on people who would otherwise run. you talk about money in politics, incumbents can raise nine dollars for every one dollar a challenger can raise. in reality, the deck is stacked. that is a great point. elections take place in the primary. if you term limit people outcome the elections that happens in the primary, you are going to get more candidates. democraticfor the presidential nomination. you have an incentive to run to the extreme of your party to
represent that majority democratic district. if we do this every six years for each class can we are going to get one third to run to the extreme of that party and exacerbate partisanship. you will send the most extreme .andidates to congress it is an interesting point. i totally agree that is not what was intended. we can do other things besides term limits. having this conversation until our program ends. if you support term limits, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose term limits, (202) 748-8001. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i support everything these two gentlemen are saying. i have dealt with congress for 50 years. what i found was that even when
the congressmen changes, the staff does not. there is a secondary problem i wish people would consider, and that is that with the congressmen should go the staff because the staff is the real continuity. we wind up with bureaucratic congressman with staff who are connected to the lobbyists. that is where one of the greatest problems is. host: should there be term limits on congressional staff? somethingis certainly i would favor. it does not need to come along for the ride for term limits with congress. this is one of the most popular myths for term limits with congress.
85% of congressional staff said they were against term limits. that settles the debate. typically they work under the protection of a senior member of congress. if that member of congress has to retire, the staff will diminish in value. termcalifornia passed limits, the staff turnover on committees increased by 50% in the 1990's. you have a problem with staff and the revolving door in washington, d.c. staff will go and become a lobbyist. term limits would address that because if you term limit the old boss, you are devaluing that rolodex when the person goes over to k street to become a lobbyist. there was one study that found the amount of money you can earn as a lobbyist on k street drops by 25% when you're old employer retires.
host: here are the most senior senators. patrick leahy, democrat from vermont, chuck grassley from iowa, mitch mcconnell, republican of kentucky. richard shelby of alabama. patty murray out of washington, a democrat. diane feinstein, democrat from california. staff of those very senior members have some sort of term limit? guest: absolutely not. they represent the continuity of government. we are under appreciating how hard it is to this place open on a day-to-day basis. that are notgrams going away when you term limit senators or staff out. level,t the most senior they are valued for their connection, but also because they know things.
they know how they work. they know how to implement law. they are able to predict unintended consequences. the knowledge does not go away. if you term limit the staff, that goes somewhere else. they have proven more likely to go to k street to use that expertise because it is not very valuable when you leave this area of government. the put term limits on congressional staff ensures we lose the capacity of government to function on a day-to-day basis. we are trying to prove a negative by saying how bad it would be if we did this. i promise you it would be way worse. list of showed you that longest-serving current senators. don young of the house again serving in 1973 from alaska. james sensenbrenner from wisconsin, republican.
hal rogers of kentucky, 1981. steny hoyer, democrat from maryland, 1981. edward calling in from massachusetts. supports term limits. go ahead. caller: just a comment. twain summed it up properly when he said politicians in diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason. thank you. we'll get to patrick from south dakota. go ahead. caller: i just had a question for both guests. you seem to offer term limits as this silver bullet for the disconnect americans feel for their congress. why is it specifically term limits that can resolve this problem? and to casey, you mentioned if
we do have term limits, new congresspeople and senators will defer to outside interests. special interests are are already a problem in the status quo problem. why do term limits make this worse? order ofwill start in the questions asked. guest: we're not saying it is a silver bullet, but it is a huge part of the reform needed to fix this broken system. one reason we are so enthusiastic about term limits is it has worked very well at the state level. there are 15 state legislatures with term limits. those states have more competitive elections. they have lower barrier to entry. people are able to run for office from all walks of life. we have data on how states are performing in terms of fiscal health. the states with term limits on average have a better ranking of fiscal health than this dates with career politicians.
the rookies are not driving these states into the ground. they know they have a fixed time horizon to get the job done and change the system before it changes them and then return home. host: the question for you is your concern about special interests becoming more of a problem. trying to prove that it is going to get worse at the federal level. the state level is not the federal level. it is infinitely bigger and harder to do because you are floating on things that affect alaska when you are from maine. it is hard to anticipate all of these things. the difference comes from information voids. members of congress and their staff are so torn and 70 different directions and pulled by summary interests trying to vote on credit default swaps the same day as health care and immigration. when they don't have all the information, they go somewhere else that has it.
it will get worse under term limits. you are mandating that experience leaves the chamber every 12 years. you are mandating that it gets worse. that information gap gets bigger and bigger. then you go somewhere else, and those are often special interest groups or nonpartisan organizations. those are getting harder to find in d.c. members of congress have so many information voids because they are campaigning all the time. instead of doing their jobs, these people are raising money on the campaign trail 70% of the time. if we had term limits and they were more focused on the business at hand, they could read the bills and the special interests would not be able to do so. one thing about lobbyists, we have run hundreds of term limits campaigns all over the country, every level of government, city county and state, and in every single one of those campaigns, the lobbyists and special
interests they represent contributed exclusively to whatever side is trying to prevent or abolish term limits. lobbyists are no fans of term limits. they don't like when term limits separate the relationships they have. jack abramoff said as much. the politician who stays in office for life and is a friend is worth his weight in gold to a lobbyist. host: having a conversation about term limits this morning. they will be testifying about term limits later today at a senate judiciary subcommittee this morning. you can watch that streaming live at c-span.org. that is where we will be watching it. casey burgat with the r street institute, senior fellow. nick tomboulides. 1995.s back to
what was that case about? what happened is voters in 23 states passed initiatives at the ballot box to turn limit their members of congress. if you lived in florida, you would have gone to the about box and said yes. you amended the florida constitution to say that now florida's congressional term limits.s sometimes they were state amendments, sometimes they were statutes. that was appealed to the supreme court. decision, theplit supreme court ruled that those state imposed term limits were unconstitutional. for term limits to happen, it has to be an amendment to the federal constitution. it has to be what we are working on today. host: we hear about bills being proposed in congress for term limits. you don't think that will be
upheld by the courts? will not be upheld if it is a statute. if it is a constitutional amendment, if that gets a two thirds approval from the house and the senate, then it will go to the states for ratification, and if 38 states ratify it, it becomes part of the constitution. sometimes there are clever bills , these are serious term limits that senator cruz is proposing that would affect every member of congress. it is a constitutional amendment. it could not be challenged in court. now is your chance to talk to them. john is in jonesboro, georgia on the line for those who support term limits. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my
call. host: what is your question or comment? caller: my comment is i oppose the term limits because once they get into power, they become career politicians, and that is no good. once they become a career politician, all the big interest groups have the money backing them, and they are afraid that if they don't win reelection, they are going to have to get out and find a real job. what youall become call lobbyists or so-called lobbyists. i think it is time if you have a presidency, you should have one for congress. host: what do you think is a fair term for members of the house and the senate? caller: two terms. that is it.
not have a chance to build a relationship with the money that is behind them. in certain districts, you can go back 20 years, and nobody can run against them because they have the funds. host: what would you say to john? guest: the first point about career politicians, i get. they are career politicians. they only keep that office if the electorate sends them back. it is not given to them. we see upsets all the time. no further than 2018. you have to challenge them. think more members if they are afraid to lose their seats, that is a member problem. that is them putting their interests above the electorate. i think we have a lot of members who do not put that interest above their constituents. if you feel they do, vote against them. that is what we expect in our system of government. staff,s of legislative
if you force the mandate of them turning over, you increase the difference on lobbyists that are able to provide this information. with any job, any career that you decide, you get better at the job the more you do the job. there is no school for congress. there is no way to train for this outside of state legislatures. you are self-selecting people who have an interest in this. i don't know what other profession we have where we kick people out if they have an interest in their job. host: john says two terms total. what is the term limit that senator cruz is proposing? guest: i agree with john on two terms, one in office, one in prison. house,erm limits in the six in the house, 12 in the senate.
a different piece of legislation, 12 years in the house to in the senate? guest: we don't support that one. we feel like if the president can get his job done in eight years, then you can do that in the house. i think term limits are like dental appointments, the shorter the better. is that also in the form of a constitutional amendment? guest: it is. host: leonard in new jersey opposes term limits. go ahead. caller: government is a reflection of us. we put these people in office. let's remember one very important rule, and that is we hate congress except for the
congress people we elect. most senators except for the senator we elect. the fact of the matter is if we want to change government, the first thing we need to do is get gerrymandering out of the political parties and allow for fair congressional districts based on the gains or the losses ofthe state, not the winds one political party over another. that is the only way you're going to change government, and to limit politicians to two terms in the house and whatever in the senate is idiotic. the fact of the matter is if you really think the president completes a job in eight years, you are sadly mistaken. a president should really have .ore than eight years personally, i think they should
have three terms, but unfortunately not for this particular president. i would like to see him out as quickly as possible. guest: this is about the competitiveness of our elections and whether people have a chance to make a meaningful choice when they go into the ballot box. even in the so-called wave election, over 80% of the elections for congress are uncontested or under contested. that means for the vast majority of americans, there is no functional choice. we have to make our elections more competitive. if you look at when elections are competitive, it happens to be when there are open seats. in washington, we only get open seats when a member retires, passes away, or gets indicted. term limits would force mandatory open seat elections on a regular basis, which would give voters a lot more choices at the ballot box. right now incumbency is doing more to keep choices off your
ballot. againsts willing to run an incumbent. if you have less than $1 million in your bank account, your odds 2 being a house incumbent is in 193. those open seats do not open up as often as they should. an interesting chart showing the average years of prior service in each chamber that senators and representatives have at the start of their term, you can see a creeping up over the years. to 1789. back ht the beginning of the 116t congress, members in the house had 8.6 years of prior service on average in the house when they were reelected. members of the senate, 10.1 years of prior service in the senate. the congressional research
service with that chart. you talked about a constitutional amendment to change term limits. what is term limit convention? under article five of the constitution, there are two ways to propose an amendment. you can get a two thirds vote in congress. we call that the turkeys voting for thanksgiving method. you can go back to the state legislatures and get two thirds of the state legislatures to call for a convention to propose an amendment. this was asserted at the constitutional amendment to give states an end run around washington, d.c., around the swamp when congress refused to do what was right because it was not in their own self-interest. there have been three states, florida, missouri, and alabama, that have called for a convention term limit congress.
host: if you get a constitutional amendment to do that, does that open up a pandora's box of changing the entire constitution? guest: no. we're not talking about a constitutional convention. we're talking about a single issue convection. the legislation the states have passed say this is only operative if it focuses on term limits and no other subjects. there are many safeguards built into the process to make sure nothing else can get out of the convention. the biggest safeguard is that any constitutional amendment in america has to be ratified by 38 state legislatures to become part of the constitution. that is why we have a firewall against constitutional amendments. 27t is why we have only had in our history because it is exceptionally hard to do. guest: it is exceptionally hard to do. there are a lot of points talking about using term limits to solve other problems. frustrated at 80% of
seats being said, term limits will not solve that problem. it will be different people running in the same district. if you're talking about the scare off effect of big money in your pockets, that will not be solved by term limits. it will open it up for special interests and big money donors to choose their candidates in those safe seats. it is often painted as a silver bullet, and if we are frustrated by those other problems, and we should be, we need to solve taking badems, and numbers out at the expense of good members is a draconian mechanism to make that happen. host: explain what the our street institute is. guest: it is a think tank in washington, d.c. i worked on the governance project, which works on making congress work again.
we agree that congress is broken. it is serving the wrong people too often. we are not naive to think this is an easy process, that if you elect the right members, they are going to do this. we recognize congress does not have the capacity to govern right now. , weon't have enough staff are too dependent on outside information. the our street institute, we try to find experts to from a conversation about this. host: with us for another 15 minutes, john waiting in louisiana. caller: i support them. gentleman mentioned the convention of the states. i think that is the only way we are going to get that because there is no way legislatures are going to vote for term limits themselves. i approve of that. i don't worry about the constitution being unnecessarily
amended because of the three quarters of our by the states. -- acquirement by the states. i think the senate should go back to be the governor's house as opposed to the people's house, which is the way the founders put this thing together. the statehouse is determined the senate makeup, and they call that the governor's house as opposed to the people's house of the house of representatives, which is a democratic thing. can i ask why you support doing it that way? caller: i support the convention of states. i think that is the only way to i'm talkingst: about the senate and your comments about the 17th amendment. why do you think it should go back to being the governor's house? it has become a political thing now just like the house of representatives it was to be the state legislators
get to choose. host: do you have thoughts on the 17th amendment? guest: not particularly. i will mention something that came to mind. the 17th amendment is actually good president for how to get an amendment passed because the convention organizing at the state level was the genesis of that amendment. at the time it was proposed by congress, about 30 states had issued applications asking for a convention to debate the subject. congress saw the writing on the wall, and they passed the amendment themselves. host: how close do you think we are to seeing congress seeing the writing on the wall? guest: i think we are getting closer every day. frustrating with congress is at an all-time high.
i think the american people have lost confidence in congress. we feel like our politicians overpromise and under deliver on every single issue. i cannot think of a major problem congress has solved in the last 30 years and so something is eventually going to have to have, and term limits would go a long way toward convincing people that congress wants to the people again. all pro 17thof amendment. the senate was intended to be the governor's house, and we have those, they exist where the governor's live in their states. i am for the voters choosing their representatives. i don't think it will get better. advanceeat politics to term limits because congress is so popular. guest: is it good politics to oppose term limits? guest: it is horrible politics.
voters have an option to choose someone else, but it is great politics to say i should be kicked out, i am part of the problem. all those things can be true. that does not mean it is good for governing. we are going to be less likely to solve these horrible problems, these things that affect day-to-day americans because it is going to be a constant turnover of new members that do not know how to do the job. host: how many members of congress have taken the term limits pledge? guest: about 60 members of congress have taken the pledge. there are others who support term limits, but the huge problem is they all want to go home to their districts and say i support term limits, but we cannot get anything done because we cannot agree on the proposal. that is why we designed the term limits pledge, to get all the supporters on the same page, supporting the same bill because
that is really the only way it is going to work. some of them sign up for it for simple reasons, others do it from a principal perspective. every two election cycles, we are constantly getting more congressmen on the bill because they never leave. host: how many have broken the pledge? guest: there have been a select few. saying he would step down from congress after three terms. host: michael on the line for those who opposed term limits. caller: thank you. thank you to c-span for the great job you do. i'm a first time caller. i want to say that term limits are a ruse. we have term limits. it is called the vote. the fact is that you don't like that my representative got elected to five terms in a row,
run against them. that comes down to the next problem, money. money is the root of all these problems. both have talked about the fact that money is everything. if you want to change the system, take the money out of it. that is the first thing you do. the second is gerrymandering. people are able to stay in their districts because of the way they are gerrymandered. that is the problem that needs to be solved. term limits is an easy campaign issue. it sounds good, but it does not solve the problem. vote and you want to competitive, meaningful elections, you need term limits. we have seen at the state level is that states that have adopted term limits have seen record numbers of additives filing for office because when you have open seats and incumbents that have not been there 20 years, you have a better chance of winning the election. it is not like pulling a sword from a stone.
right now there is a tremendous imbalance in the amount of money and incumbent is able to raise versus a challenger. it is about nine to one special interests. special interests and lobbyists love to bet on winners. they are perpetuating the cycle of an open secret a lot of people don't even run against incumbents. in an open seat, it is not as expensive to run for congress. the seats are a lot cheaper, so the barriers to entry are lower. that means people from all walks of life have an opportunity to serve in congress. i know you are going to oppose term limits, but how do you solve some of those money in politics issues? guest: notice is a totally different conversation. term limits will not change the district boundaries. politics is ain
complex issue. there are a lot of things we can do. it is going to go to the supreme court. we have seen that with the citizens united case. there are soft limits, hard limits, a whole host of ways to donate and bundle to a candidate, often to incumbents, but it is naive to think those big-money donors will all of a sudden set out races. they are going to pick and choose which ones they think are most likely to serve their interests because that is what their money is going towards. i don't think it is an incumbency thing. it is because it is a known commodity. i don't think money will sit out. will not be any less impactful because of term limits. we need to tackle that issue separately. host: just a couple minutes left. guest: even if you solve the problem with money, incumbents have nonmonetary advantages it can exploit. they have tremendous name recognition. they have congressional
privilege that says they can send taxpayer-funded election silent tears to constituents at no cost. no challenger is afforded that opportunity. it helps to stack the deck. you see that incumbents get free media. any time incumbent puts out a rest release or start a new initiative, that will be on the local newspaper and on cable news. it is this cycle of advantages that will not be overcome even by a very good candidate barack obama is one of the most counted and gifted politicians in the history of our country. when he ran for congress in 2000, against an incumbent, he got wiped out. if barack obama cannot overcome incumbency, nobody can. in eagle,l is waiting idaho. noter: barack obama could
run a lemonade stand. his experience in the executive branch was zero. i think that the guy from louisiana who called in about the 17th amendment, i would like to hear greater discussion of that. what i am hearing in this discussion this morning is an undercurrent of too much power in washington. 1913, we had an election of senators i state legislatures. that gave states more power. what happened after the 17th the powerin 1913 is shifted to the federal level. you talk about money corruption, look at that. i would appreciate some comment -- some comment on that. believe voters should have the right to choose their elected officials. that extends to the senate.
before 1913, women could not vote either. i think this is an issue of progress. to give it back to governors that are second-degree elected, that is a bad way to represent constituents. don't really have any particular thoughts on the 17th amendment. i can see the merits of both sides. i know before the 17th amendment, there were issues with state legislators being bribed for senators. at the same time, i see the other side of the argument that states are getting short shrift with respect to their influence in washington, d.c. this is a complicated issue. i may term limits guy. has there ever been a member of congress that you wish has stuck around longer? been quite ahave few. i am going to name any of them right now you're the fact that
you have a good member of congress among 535 members is for allowingcation career politicians to run our government. typically when you have a member of congress who is doing a good job, that person has to but the establishment. they don't simply toe the party line. that kind of resistance in congress is met with retaliation. memberare an independent of congress, you will be pulled off your committees. you will have less influence. most of the congressman i like 10 to be pushed to the back bench by leadership. if we had term limits, the system would not be governed by how many gray hairs you have on your head. merit-based system because it would have to be. host: gloria has been waiting and monroe. caller: good morning.
is wonderful and we need more people like that running our country. i think there should be term limits. i think eight years for president, maybe 20 years for senator and no more than 20 years for a congressperson. we have a serious problem going on, and the majority of the public want it done and over with and want them out. that is a fact. host: thank you for the call. guest: i swear i did not pay her to say that. guest: i think he is great and wonderful. support orkind of push back do you think you will get from the senators? guest: i cannot imagine senator cruz and i are on the same side of the issue given that he introduced the amendment. . look forward to this this is on government reform.
this is the issue i care most about. i'm interested and excited about the opportunities to discuss the pros and cons. something that has 85% approval us america, i think a lot of them are overselling the benefits of term limits. there are downsides to this. i'm excited about this. guest: we will see. politicians don't tend to like term limits. that is why i like it so much. it is an issue the american people deserve to have debated in the city. it has been so long since there has been a committee hearing on term limits despite all of the polling. what people don't know is it is not just the most popular issue in america. it is the most bipartisan issue in america. 82% support. that includes 89% of republicans, 76%