tv Washington Journal CSPAN July 5, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
crises and the effect on the global economy. a former senior writer for bloomberg businessweek joins us, and currently the host of full disclosure. ♪ host: "the hill" reports that despite progress, efforts could be a dead end in the senate. some ofsenate democrats want t negotiate over spending levels. russian president vladimir putin called president obama to express confidence in the relationship between the two countries. that call to place yesterday -- took place yesterday, they'd knowledge that they do have
differences between the two countries. yesterday, presence of candidates campaigned in new hampshire and iowa. for a question today in the first 45 minutes take a look at 2016, we want to take a look at social issues, especially in 2016, and if you think they will be a factor, invite of the supreme court decision on gay marriage. here is how you can let us know your thoughts on social issues. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. for independents (202) 745-8002 (202) 745-8002,. you can post on our twitter page , @cspanwj. you can also post on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. or send us an e-mail, firstname.lastname@example.org. on the front page of "the new york times" it takes a look at
technology and campaigning specifically selfies. yesterday, a popular day to be campaigning, especially as 2016 comes about. the folks at gallup did a recent poll, looking at americans and their attitudes towards various types of social issues. you can find on their website. it shows a little bit how things have changed, especially since their last poll in 2001. in 2001, 40% of respondents were ok with gay lesbian relations that grew to 63% in 2015. having a baby outside of marriage, that was 45% 2001, and 61% in 2015. to the topic of medical research, using stem cells, 52% of respondents agreed in 2001,
that grew to 64% in 2015. to the topic of abortion, that was 42 percent into thousand one, and that grew to 45% in 2013. in the first 45 mins, in light of the supreme court decision on gay, your thoughts on social issues, and if they will be a factor. here is how you can let us know, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202) 745-8002 . you can post on her twitter page @cspanwj, and also on facebook facebook.com/cspan. we will start off in bloomington, indiana, that is where daniel is on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. the social issues that we have come across recently are going
to make or break the candidates coming into 2016. i have been focused personally on the conscience of our faith. it will play a big role in our lives as we develop as individuals and people of faith. as i look at how government's role has played in the conscience of our faith, particularly recently with things such as marriage, i'm interested as to the role that candidates will play with the first amendment. host: which of the candidates currently match your thinking on social issues? caller: currently, i cannot test any of them reaching that
standard to my thinking on social issues. we are going to be the candidate who is willing to test the waters. unfortunately, some of those names have not applied to be president of the united states. host: such as who? caller: i do not want to speak to him in regards to his job but the senator in utah. i have followed him. he is young and his career, it is senator mike lee. host: let's hear next up from mike in baltimore, maryland, independent line. good morning. caller: how are you? host: five, thank you. caller: i do not want to know anything about social issues when it comes to politics. politics is managing people and money. i don't want to know about someone's husband, why wife, who is gay, who is not gay. i will give you an example.
does anyone know who eisenhower's wife or kids were? or henry kissinger? nobody. no one cares. they were not in politics for this r reason. i think social issues should be taken out of the focus. focus on the person's ability to manage. it is just a joke -- from congress to the president. host: apologies. mike from florida. caller: good morning to you. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: ok. i'm against gay marriage. the founding fathers provided a way for us to get around oppression.
we can have a constitutional convention in every state and make marriage between a man and a woman. that is what we need to do. i am 66. i did not protest the vietnam war, by many for this. we need a march on washington. we need to show our strength. this is not the people's will. this is the will of some radical -- i don't know what they are. host: i don't know if you saw the gallup full about people changing their opinions on social things. do you think the majority of americans with think along with you, enough to change the constitution on these issues? caller: i think so. almost all the states passed it marriage between a man and a woman. they were overturn by the courts.
like scalia said, this is worse than 1776, they went to war over a t tax. this is shoving a cultural change down our throats that is against history. even the pagan romans did not recognize homosexual marriage. the ancient greeks did not recognize homosexual marriage. sure, there was plenty of homosexuals, but was not a legal marriage. this is ridiculous. host: democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 745-8002. the caller brought up the founding fathers. this morning, newt gingrich has a piece looking at the five myths of the founding fathers. the fifth one is that the founders thought the constitution would evolve.
social issues though in 2016? tell me what you're thinking is on that. caller: like you said, gay folks have the same rights as everybody else. that is how america's made. host: in light of that, you support ben carson? caller: yes. what to become american, you have to do the same thing, everyone has the same rights. host: let's hear from isabela and massachusetts -- in massachusetts. what do you think about social issues in 2016? caller: i think social issues are very important, by think we're talking about the wrong social issues. we need to remember that the declaration of independence is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the issues that i care about our
social security and benefits for people who need them. to be focusing on who can get married to whom, and so forth is ridiculous. we are past that. we should really focus on the general welfare, happiness, and rights of individuals. host: from twitter, one viewer says they are more concerned about the economy. another viewer says that social issues will always be a means to divide people. colin from baltimore, maryland. caller: i am so glad to be on. i used to think differently, i used of a religious perspective, but now i have a perspective
that gay people should be able to marry each other. if a person skilled in life they should not have to begin at the marriage altar and look for a woman just because they want to get married. you can't say they can never get married because that is not human. it is logical that a gay man would have to marry another game on. that is obvious. i think -- host: when it comes to social issues over all, it doesn't matter as far as thee 2016 context? you don't think about that? caller: you mean the election? host: yes. caller: the fact is that the homosexual marriage is approved by a high majority of the american people. i think my fellow republicans
should understand that the public opinion is just not moral, but dealing with people how they are. host:. is up next in albuquerque, new mexico, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for c-span. great show as always. i think everyone sort of votes their own social issues, and talks a good game about everyone else's needs and problems. their neighbor who has not been able to find a job for 20 years cannot even get an interview even though they want to college and got a degree. those are all things you talk
about over the dinner. -- over the dinner table. if you are a gay person, you vote for gay rights. you will your own narrowminded social issue because at the end of the day, we are a nation of individuals. everyone is looking out for number one. there is no one doing anything for anyone except for number one. host: do you think social issues will play out on a larger context for the 2016 campaign? caller: i really do. i think you will see a quickening, a lot of divisive issues. at the end of the day, i think people go in that and vote for their own best interest. i would like to be altra stick -- altrauistic. there is good in all people. you could probably go to the jail and interviewed charles
manson, and you will find something good, but at the end of the day, we vote for number one -- me, myself, and i. social issues divide us by what we love and hate, mostly what we hate. they divide us by race, color, gender. we go in there and vote for our needs. thank you for the time. host: we go next to julius and chicago heights, illinois. caller: i want this be to this issue of gay marriage. if you had a small community let's say 1000 adults, and you heard that 200 men married 200 women, no one would be c concerned about that. if you hear 200 men married 200 men, people would be concerned about that.
and if 10 million men married 10 million women, no one would be concerned, but if 10 million men married 10 million men, i think everybody would see the concerned about that. host: let's hear from joe in west virginia. caller: i was listening to david barton this morning, he writes on constitutional issues and the founding fathers. back in the 1850's, people wanted to amend the constitution to say take jefferson's letter on church and state, and get that separated completely. the supreme court reviewed it took large portions of his letter to prove there was any separation, and later in the same decade, the supreme court reiterated that we were based on
biblical principles. in the 1900s, in the 1940's and 1950's, they took this again -- for instance the 10 commandments. they wanted to get rid of the 10 commandments. i just thought, anyone who thinks we should not have the 10 commandments should not make any decisions. who believes that we should not kill steal, things like that. this is what is affecting all of these social things. when we have everything grounded and biblical principles, where you respect and love your neighbor, then the world is a better place. if anybody cannot see that the world is turning into total chaos and a lot of it began when these decisions came from the supreme court -- we have
a supreme court that is out of control. they should not be legislating. that is not the job at all. host: can i as, when you go vote for a person next year, even on the local level, how important are social issues to the person that you support? caller: very much. it affects everybody. all of these things affect us. take for instance the legalization of marijuana. you have kids who cannot think straight because they are high all the time. host: you have heard nine opinion so far on social issues when it comes to 2016. if you want to make your thoughts known as well, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202) 745-8002
adjusted -- let me tell you something, social issues boil down to funding. we are talking about local as well as national. it is all about dividing up money. one of the things that i think will really affect this country in the next four years is the issue of immigration. we are stretching ourselves very thin. no one wants to talk about it. i'm not talking about donald trump. some of the things that this man says is absolutely true. when you talk about that -- like a said, we're talking about money. rand paul asks some of the most legitimate questions that i have heard why are we in some of these countries why are we
allocating funds to people when we should take care of ourselves? i'm talking about dollars and how they get stretch. all of a sudden, there's not enough money in the pot. it is all about funding. you cannot fund these programs when you have people here who are not pay into the system. host: ok. thanks. freddie from north carolina, social issues in 2016. good morning. you are on. caller: you know, i hear so many complaints from black people. i'm not prejudiced. i'm born in the south and lived in the south all my life, and i have a lot of black friends and/or have any problems with them. the american indians, you never hear them complaining about how
they were treated in the trail of tears. i never heard them complaining one bit. they were put on reservations. the black people, they were given their freedom. god bless them. i went to the south and have seen some bad stuff in the south, but they should not blame all the white people in the south for what is going on now. i love everybody. everybody realizes one thing, we do have a god and god will be on top of this thing at the end of it. that is my two cents. host: from twitter, the constitution was not designed to handle social issues that we face in 2015. you have heard topics of gay marriage primarily. gun control was a topic that president obama brought up in south carolina. one of the things he talked
about was the topic of gun control. [video clip] president obama: none of us should believe that handful of gun safety measures will prevent every tragedy. it will not. people of goodwill will continue to debate the merits of various policies. as our democracy requires, there are good people on both sides of these debates. whatever solutions we find will necessarily be incomplete. it would be a betrayal of everything reverend pinckney stood for, i believe, if we allow ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again. host: you can e comment
on the social issue of gun control, or other issues. if you want to make your comments known, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. independents, (202) 745-8002. john is on the line from new york. what do you think of social issues in 2016? caller: from one perspective -- host: john, are you there? i think john broke up. apologies for that. ron in lincoln, nebraska. you are on. caller: first that wanted to say, good job c-span, i love the show. what i wanted to make a comment -- your caller from michigan correctly pointed out that it is about dollars.
as voters, we go to the voting vbooth with social issues in mind, but it is all about dollars. it, i wanted to make about donald trump -- a comment i wanted to make about donald trump. the republicans threw him in to differentiate, and become again a serious party. i would like to join the republican party, but where they stand on social issues and some of the conservative financial stuff, they have lost me. i hope the plan o of the republican party is to identify people and kick them out. host: let's hear from sheldon in oklahoma city, oklahoma.
caller: my topic is about same-sex marriage. i want to start out by saying i'm not a homophobe. one thing i think the same-sex marriage does is it aids in our extinction as a race. you cannot reproduce with the same-sex. one thing i can say as well is they advertise it a lot. i feel like that confuses children. if you go back in time, they advertise smoking, but now you see ads about how bad it is. host: do you think social issues overall will be important in 2016? caller: yes. i think a lot of people are realizing things and waking up. i think we woke up too late. we need to come together and see what to do to fix it, instead of
focusing on the bad and how bad it is, action do something about it. host: from twitter, social issues may be a factor but not a top priority. usa needs to wake up, get smart, or we will become another greece. by the way, greece will be our topic at 9:50 later on this morning -- 9:15 later on this morning. "the hill" looks at economic issues specifically the budget.
you can read more at "the hill" website this morning. anthony, we are talking about social issues and the importance they will play in 2016, go ahead. you are on. caller: hello. i believe it happy fourth of july to you. i think you do a very evenhanded job with the news. i would just like to mention that the hobby lobby decision and citizens united went and showed that the supreme court can be very far to the right. now that the supreme court has ruled on gay marriage and obamacare, as one caller said a few minutes ago, they are out of control.
they are interpreting the laws. that is their job. that is why we have the supreme court. i am in "abc democrat," anyone but clinton. host: "the new york times" talks about the supreme court under justice roberts -- 10 years of an activist court. they say that many times over the conservative majority has changed the laws to disfavor the majority. what he florida, republican line, you are next. caller: good morning.
i am a 73-year-old christian guy who believes that this is not a christian country. this is a country that allows all religions, including atheism. if to homosexuals want to get married to each other, that is ok with me. it does not bother my marriage. i have a wonderful marriage to a woman, by don't care if two women get married together or two men get married together. that is not a problem at all. host: do you think politics is the place to take on social issues? caller: no, absolutely not. you look at the preamble to the constitution. it will tell you -- politics and religion do not mix. host: hank from florida.
caller: good morning. first of all, i have two comments. my first is donald trump. i am a republican and a gay man. i will say, i do not agree with everything that donald trump does, but he is saying what most of us are saying privately in our homes. host: i was going to ask about social is issues in 2016, if you have thoughts on that? caller: we are already there. social security, medicare. my second issue is as a gay man the government has been collecting our taxes for years. why can we not get our survivor benefits from our partners who have passed away? it has been a slush fund for the
u.s. government social security. i think that is wrong. thank you for taken my call. host: jason from omaha nebraska. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. i was just wondering, we talk about social issues all the time. we can take half the money from wars and educate american children. schools are dilapidated in the city. in the suburbs, schools are far better. the same situation happens when they do not have enough money. we can go to war, but we don't want to take care of our children. as far as gay rights and homosexuals getting married, and church -- a wise minister said, the church will be the church and the world will be the world. what happens in the church is biblical. what happens in the world is
totally separate. if someone wants to do something and get married, that is on them, the world. the church is focused on themselves. they get so many taxes them's, why don't they take care of business within their own church and leave the world alone. host: a story in "the washington post" talks about statements that john mccain has made on afghanistan.
we will go next to cairo and spring hill, florida. caller: good morning. i have a comment about gun control. i think it is time that we really do have gun control. when someone who is legally not able to buy a gun and set up with the gun, and he take someone's life, or basically just own it, we have no way to go back and find out who gave that godun to that man. we should have registration that you have to register the got every year, just like you do with the car. i also think they should take ballistic tests and keep them on file so if that gun turns up, we
can trace it back to how they originally bought it. host: do you think that control will be an issue in 2016? caller: i think it is if it is not issued 2016, it will soon have to. there is so much gun violence on the streets of this country, it is always like living in afghanistan ourselves. host: do you pay attention to any other social issues besides gun-control? and if you do, do you think they will be a factor in 2016? caller: i do. one of my main that we do not educate the children. they will be running a country that looks pretty unstable to me.
the idea to make to years of community college free is exactly what we need to do. my daughter went back to school for years at night. now she has a 70,000 dollars college debt. it doesn't make sense. our children in this country are the best resource that america has. we're not taking care of them. we are not educated them. we need to start paying attention to what is happening in our own basic info structure. -- infrastructure. host: "the washington times" reporting on a phone conversation taking place between vladimir putin and president obama on independence day.
from what wikileaks leaked -- we will be controlled by all multinational corporations. if the tpp gets voted down, i would say that the social issues are most important to me are the continuation of social security medicare. i think like the lady before me spoke, education is a big thing. i don't care -- gay rights, they can do whatever they want. it does not affect my marriage. i am really really scared about the threat of the tpp.
one additional thing. i was in medicin madison to see bernie sanders. i was one of the five volunteers. i have been following bernie sanders for years. i hope he gets the democratic nomination. your republicans out there -- you do not want scott walker. the administration has just tried to take away the open records law so that we would not be able to see what the state government is doing. they would close all the records if they got their way. there was a big uproar online and in the newspapers. host: thank you for the comments this morning. "the new york times" highlights the current negotiations between five countries involved with iran over its nuclear program.
and updates day from vienna -- an update today from vienna. from louisiana, this is bobby. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say that yes, every politician, as in the past, they talk about their interest of people. they will definitely talk about what the people are saying.
the politicians also need to understand that the world is looking at the very in moral position that america is now in with them trying to and close the whole world to engage in sodomy. this is one of the things that is killing america. no one seems concerned about america dying. i do not know whether they will care about it. you cannot have citizens if citizens are not reproducing. i also dig it is awful that these so-called gay people do not mind destroying this country with their sexual desires. they need to repent. host: good morning. caller: with gay marriage, i don't believe it is right that the supreme court should
redefine webster's dictionary the bible, several other religious texts. they all say that marriage is between a man and woman. there is no reason that we could not just go into common-law marriage and leave it at that and leave our marriage between just one man and one woman. they will carry this to extremes . we will have several men several women being married. they will get into the church next. it will be the supreme court telling the church what they need to do and how to conduct their religion. it is not right. they have gone way too far. host: one more call from john in lafayette, georgia.
caller: one of the things that i have noticed is historically we have moved away from constitutionalism. we are interpreting laws from other countries and taking prescedents from other countries. social issues -- as far as gay marriage, and what the supreme court has done, i am 100% in support of that. the reason being is that if i was brought up, i was taught my rights. i think everybody in this country ought to have the same privileges under the law as everybody else. i think everybody ought to be treated the same. one thing i'm concerned about is -- someone mentioned it a moment ago, we have had this big stress
on separation of church and state. you can't pray in public or in schools. you can't share your religion in public in most places. students are even sent home if they have a religious teacher on at school. i see that as a violation of church and state. what this gentleman was saying a moment ago, what the supreme court has done is 100% unconstitutional. they need to protect religious organizations who do not agree. it is a sacrament and not part of the law. host: ok. that was john from georgia.
he will finish up the first session of phones this morning. coming up, we will look at plans from the white house, which announced last week they will make changes to overtime benefits. noam scheiber will be our guest to talk about that. later on, a roundtable look at 2016 politics, especially in light of the issues brought up in our first 45 minutes. paul waldman and james antle will be here to talk about that later in the problem. first of all, i want to let you know about our omaha, nebraska weekend. it is the city being profiled all weekend long. you can see not only about its historical aspects it's liters literary aspects too. [video clip] >> the club was a phenomenal
story of an unlikely group of people in an unlikely place at an improbable time in history that faced and challenged racial discrimination in omaha, nebraska. when the club began their operation, the idea, and in fact the term civil rights was not part of the national lexicon -- they use the term social justice. the idea of civil rights was so far removed from that of omaha or the rest of the united states, they were operating in a vacuum in a net. sometimes they were making up their strategies and techniques. i'm educated do this presentation often for middle school and high school
students, it is not that you could shoot someone an e-mail. it was not like that. they were going to head out leaflets, but weren't sure if it was legal. they were that far ahead of what became the norm later. host: again, that and much more. you can find out about the city of omaha, nebraska this weekend. go to our website to find out more. joining us on set, noam scheiber of "the new york times ." we are here to talk about an announcement from the white house talking over time. can you paint is a picture of how works generally? guest: basically there are 75
million hourly employees. all of them artificially eligible for overtime -- time and a half -- that is according to the fair labor act. in addition to that, there have been salaried employees that are also eligible for overtime. the definition of who is eligible has evolved quite a bit since 1938 when the act was put in place. initially, it was everyone who makes under $30 per week back in 1940. a variety of people who spend -- who are basically executives, they were often exempted from overtime regulations. if you spent more than 20% of your time on nonexempt
activities, then you were required to get overtime as well. that was the initial sttheme in 1928, it has evolved over the years. salary has been eroded due to inflation over the years. it was last adjusted in 1975. actually the bush and mr. a share adjusted it somewhat in 2004, but the biggest change was to introduce even more exceptions -- exemptions so that employees could get out of paying overtime. really, the regime that existed before this announcement this week was set in 1975. host: generally, do companies do well by their employees when it comes to issues of overtime? guest: the argument was that the
2004 change made it possible for a lot of companies to exempt people who really should not be exempt. that was the concern that in the last 10 years there had been a growing number of workers who probably should be eligible, but they do not have much authority, could not be considered executives, and yet they were being exempt from overtime rules . i think a lot of the reason behind this change was we should actually be giving those people overtime as well. host: you could be labeled a manager and still stock shelves, but being labeled manager, you cannot have overtime. guest: athletic trainers was an innovation, team leaders was a term that became very much in
vogue. those people were exempted. the thinking in raising the salary threshold is by just bumping the salary, we will not have to rely on these amorphous definitions. host: that brings us to modern-day. the president announced in wisconsin last week that a series of changes were coming. we will hear from the president in just a bit, but set the stage for us. guest: prior to this rule going into effect, basically everyone who made under $23,500, every employee had to get overtime. other than that, things got dicey. now, they will raise the
threshold. basically everyone who makes under $50,000 will get overtime. the administration estimates that 5000 people who would have been legitimately exempt at the previous line will now be captured. they think some of those people will just get raises. say you make $40,000 per year and your employer was a lot of flexibility to allow you to work overtime, they will probably just raise you over the threshold. some people will just get raises, and others will make overtime pay. a third category person -- they will just get their hours cut back.
there's about 5 million people in that universe. then, there's a broader universe of 10 million people who the administration thinks will be helped by this. i think those people should not have been exempted the first place. they were not managers executives, but employers were middle-class lighting them. there are about 10 minute people -- 10 million people who were being misclassified or vulnerable to being misclassified. host: with that in mind, noam scheiber is here to talk about the efforts by the administration to change how overtime work. if you have questions for him, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. to capitalize what we have been talking about it is workers will have to be paid overtime even if
being classified as a manager while making $970 per week. the first call for you comes from linda in knoxville, tennessee, democrats line. caller: enforcement. state or federal. a couple of years ago the tennessee state legislator passed a law that removes any standing from any employee in tennessee for suing forr unpaid overtime. guest: this is under the fair labor standards act, a federal law enacted in 1938. it is enforced by the federal government. there are department of labor investigators who investigate
abuses of viscosity reduction -- misclassification of workers. all of this plays out in the department of labor. host: from butler, pennsylvania michael is next, republican line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. my concern is the law of unintended consequences. for example, when the administration decided that 39 hours was the work week, that destroyed the livelihoods of a lot of people who are retail clerks. across the country, stores said ok, we understand that, so you are 32 hours and contract employees, not full-time, no benefits. my concern is that it will force businesses, especially those with very small profit margins
to either cut hours of the individual so they don't reach the threshold. i see no protection in the law for the individual worker. please tell me i am wrong can show me how that works. guest: you raise a very valid point. the administration itself and colleges that as certain number of people will have their hours cut back. they think that is probably small minority of the universe of 50 million people that i just mentioned. they think it is 1,000,000-2,000,000 people. it is not nothing, but a small minority of people affected. the administration argues that if people have been working 50 or 60 hours per week and are suddenly cut down to 40, we imagine it will result in more job creation.
if they cut people's hours back they will need to hire some help to fill in the gaps. they say even that seems like the most egregious unintended consequence, could end up on balance helping the economy. if you want to work those 60 hours and you are that only working 40, that is a problem. there is no question that there are some unintended consequences here. what happens over the long-term -- as people start hiring new workers under the new regime they cut the base wage so that the combination of the base wage and overtime works out to be what people were making beforehand. what you see is the base wage will drop overtime. host: justice from florida, you're next. caller: i've tried to figure out
how they will determine what rate they will use for paying people over time. i work in a private company and in the 1980's, they put everybody on a salary. my salary was $300. if i worked 60 hours, they would divide 60 by 300 and come up with a figure which is five dollars, divide that in half which is $2.50, and pay you so that every time you work more your overtime break was less. guest: this is supposed to be time and a half. it is a simple calculation. obviously, there are employers that do not follow the guidelines, but it is time and a half. host: don from california, your next, go ahead. caller: this overtime thing
sounds like politicalemployers. if you're going to have to pay somebody overtime, give them an hourly wage. if you will rule by royal decree on how we pay people in this country, why don't he make it a decree that if you're going to work more than 40 hours, the person is going to have an hourly wage and do not pretend salaries apply? i do not understand this whole business of -- what is it the government's business how some of these being paid anyway? when you are getting paid a salary you are getting paid more than the hourly person. you're been promoted into a different position. i do not understand the whole thing. very confusing to me. can you explain to me why someone is on a salary if they are going to get overtime? guest: this goes back to 1938 when the law was passed.
the thinking was there are a lot of secretaries, clerical staff people who do low-level back office functions, shipping clerks, who make a salary and they are white-collar workers but often that salary is lower than hourly workers who do blue-collar jobs. this was to prevent the exportation of workers who do those jobs. it turns out -- the exploitation of workers who do those jobs. the threshold is been so degraded by inflation, george w. bush changed law in 2004, there were a number of workers who were making minimum wage who were essentially above the threshold. the threshold has eroded over time. if you were an hourly worker making minimum wage, you were actually making more -- and working full-time, you are
making more than salary thresholds. this salary, overtime rules for salary employees dates back to the 30's -- the 1930's. by the time george w. bush got to it it was effectively nonbinding on the workforce. host: the administration putting out a map of the workers they think will be affected by this proposed rule, breaking it down state-by-state. what industries get most affected by these changes? guest: financial services. a lot of clerks, low-level accountants. there is wholesale and retail. a lot of low-paid salaried workers. some education, some health care. there is also professional services, business services.
consulting firms, law firms. people doing low-level clerical work. even paralegals that will probably be eligible as a result. host: philip is next from florida. go ahead. caller: what we will probably do is either lay people off before we can cover those extra hours because we run a small business. we're going to have to. or, higher in work less hours. the ones we have on salaries because we were run a small business. not only that, there will not be bonuses. if you start doing overtime and that kind of stuff, there will not be money for bonuses at the end of the year. host: what kind of business do your due? caller: an ice cream shop type of thing. we run four.
if we go over five employees we have to do other stuff. i am not the only small business owner. i reckon obama thinks he rules by royal decree with his pen and paper. i am not the only democrat that is getting sick and tired of this. trust was sitting there saying all these mets -- trump was sitting there, maybe everybody else thinks these mexican women -- host: we will let our guest respond. guest: i think the administration understands this could be a hardship for certain small business owners. they acknowledged there will be some people who have been working more than 40 hours a week for whom it becomes very
costly for employers and their hours will be rolled back. their thinking was eventually that work will have to be done and it will probably hire part-time workers to do it. the administration acknowledges this could create some turn in small businesses. host: josephine is next. livingston, new jersey. caller: good morning. i worked for the department of labor for 42 years. the secretary of labor under george w. bush, the wife of senator mitch mcconnell, came up with this idea. she used to work on the heads of corporations. that is where she presently is now. let me tell you a story of how this works. people think only their hourly wage. most times what they tried to do is come up when a person gets laid off from a business -- a
man came into unemployment and says, i got a job i do not have to collect. they said, where are you going back he said, i'm going back to do the same job at the same desk at the same business. the only thing is my employer informed me i am an independent contractor. that meant that his employers no longer had to put money into social security. this is a bigger picture than you think. you're talking about hourly wages. you have not begun to see what has been going down with the erosion. lane chow, she represented them well that she represented corporations well. -- she represented corporations well. most of those small businesses have been bamboozled into thinking, i run my business and this is how it works. it is not. social security is also
affected. host: thanks josephine. guest: this phenomenon of misclassification is broader than just overtime. you have the labor department wage and hour division looking into violations of fair labor standards act. obviously we have seen a big decision in california involving uber, whether drivers should be classified as employees or were independent contractors. it is in some ways analogous to the overtime rules because a lot of it hinges on whether the employer classifies you in one way or another. there is certainly a connection to this broader phenomenon. host: how our business groups responding? guest: they were not enthusiastic. most of the businesse groups
the national retail federation maybe argument that this would impose costs on employers and force a lot of them to cut back employee hours. it might even complicate promotion for people who moved up through an organization by working longer hours and now would not be able to do that. host: could there be legal challenges? guest: almost certainly. this will be litigated. like any regulation it can be challenged in federal court. unquestionably there are challenges being prepared that could slow down the implementation. even congress could theoretically get involved, attach a rider to undercut this rule a must pass appropriations bill later this year. a variety of ways which this could be challenge. host: our guest covers workplace issues for the world -- for the new york times.
teresa is up next. caller: ask for taking my call. another industry that will benefit is the food industry. my son is a chef and he works on average about 60 hours a week. he is worked as much a 70 a week. if he were getting overtime, he would be making close to what he's earning right now based on those hours. the way i see it is, when an employer does not pay an employee for more than 40 hours a week, that is almost like slave labor. it is like you are getting someone for free. when the chamber of commerce and other callers are calling in insane this is hard on small businesses, my feeling is -- and a saying this is hard on small businesses, my feeling is if you cannot afford to pay a worker, you're not running a business. our hourly wages so low anyway. how can you sleep at night in regards to taking advantage of employees?
it is really ridiculous. in addition to that, i hire handyman when i need them. i'm a small business owner. i feel good about paying them what they ask because i think that is only fair. it cuts into my profit of course. you know what, i am running a business and i cannot expect people to work for nothing. i am thrilled with what president obama has done. i hope we can make sure it is implanted. -- it is implemented. guest: there were a substantial number of people probably working overtime for no compensation. it is possible that there were people working overtime and getting compensated for overtime but not time and-a-half. probably a range of outcomes that will arise under the law. not all of them just being people working and next 20 or 30 hours a week for no additional money.
some group of people for whom that is true. for some companies, just getting paid to time and-a-half for that time, they will unquestionably affect them as well. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. guest: a lot of union jobs are hourly and hourly workers were already covered under this . there are some union jobs that are salaried jobs and those people will get time and-a-half. caller: hello. the use of the word salary. i wanted to express -- my parents understood with salary
was. my father could go home when he was sick. it was between him and the corporation. if he abused the privilege. i am exempt because i am a software engineer. we got written completely out. pretty much, i cannot say the word on television, but that is what we were done. another class of workers that could have been a strong middle class that was basically destroyed, aside from the outcome for the jobs. corporations need a disincentive to have people work unpaid overtime. if they do not have that, they will abuse it. it is therefore a reason -- it is there for a reason, to trim back the hours to 40 so it does not become a burden on the worker.
the whole quality of life that companies espouse is counter. it is like they speak with two mines and two mounts. the talk quality of life -- two minds and two mounths. it blows their mind to pay the actual hours an employee works. guest: i think that feeling in the administration was that relations were being abused. -- regulations were being abused. there was a salaries test at a duties test. salary had eroded over the years and duties have been in eroded by loopholes that made it possible for employers to classify people as managers or professionals and get out of paying overtime that way.
the thinking was, if we raise the salary threshold if the be harder to fudge it if you are an employer and will resolve a lot of these issues. host: baltimore, maryland. walter, you are next. caller: hello and good morning c-span. union workers on the mainline will not be effect -- will not be effected. they choose managers and the managers go to salaries. we, as electricians, we are paid hourly wages but the managers become higher and the company's contractors or whatever. they are ripped off too. demanded to work up to 60 to 75 hours a week at that particular salary, which may be a dollar --
one dollar to five dollars more. the problem i am seeing, it keeps coming back to them versus us. this country just celebrated a great holiday, fourth of july. i am asking your guest to comment on why these rich people -- walmart has decided to pay a decent wage and increase salaries for people who have been slaves for years. why does the conservative element in america continually deny that there is a problem as most of your colors have suggested? -- most of your callers have suggested? slavery is still represented by that flag and the conservative capacity of denying that there are problems in this country. to your guest, would you please comment on the worker's comp. issue, the minimum wage issue
and why we continue as americans to support those who do not support us? guest: i think the caller raises a larger question about leverage in the workforce. it is the case that over the past generation, since 2000, i think we have seen a divide between productivity increases and salary increases. you can conclude from that that workers have less leverage. part of it is globalization, in competition with lower skilled workers. part of it is declining union coverage. a variety of things that have undermined leverage in the marketplace for workers and i think the administration sees that as a piece in the puzzle of restoring some of that leverage for workers. host: can states that oppose this move by the white house do something on the state level to counteract? guest: a good question. it will be the rule of the
land. it states have always had the option of doing more. i think a state would be bound by the federal law. a state could be part of a legal challenge as we saw under the affordable care act but that would have to be litigated in federal court. host: what is the timeline going forward? guest: several months of a public comment period and a number of issues that will be decided during that period. the most important one, the indexation. up until now, the salary threshold has not been indexed to inflation. that is why it has eroded so much since 1975. the administration is saying that it wants to index it to some measure of inflation or wage growth so that we do not get into the situations where it falls below the minimum wage for a full-time worker. question they will ask is, should this be indexed to a measure of inflation let the consumer price index or wage
growth? this salary threshold is at about the 40% percentile. they will just keep this threshold. that is probably the biggest issue they will solicit feedback on during this comment period. host: here is sissy from north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was wondering, i am a social worker supervisor for the county in which i live. as a social worker supervisor county employee i am on call every five weeks for adult protective services. right now, i'm a salaried employee and i do not get overtime. i was wondering if i would fall
in that category because i was told that there will be a category of a certain type of worker that would not be able to get the overtime, even with this law. thank you. guest: i believe every employee who makes under $50,000 threshold should be eligible. a small number of employees who are even exempted under this. the majority of people, even if they are supervisors are still eligible. host: greg is next from georgia. good morning. let's go to diana in new jersey democrat line. caller: good morning. happy fourth of july. i wanted to say that there is another thing undermining the leverage of the american worker. there is a shadow economy, all the undocumented and u.s.
citizens working under the table. a lot of cut down on the enforcement. anti-regulation crowd that was to eliminate the department of labor and enforcement agencies like the irs. i think that is in other thing undermining. i brother-in-law is a painter. he cannot get the prices he could get 10 years ago because of the undocumented problems and with other people working under the table. people cannot work for nine dollars an hour or $10 an hour in retail or fast food establishments. i think there needs to be a big enforcement of the laws and give some leverage back to the workers. a prounion country. that is what made our country great. i would like to hear his comments about the shadow economy. guest: no question this is a phenomenon that exists. part of what the ways and hours
division of department of labor does is prosecute these violations. the fair labor standards act has a variety of regulations from minimum wage to overtime to weekly hour limits that employers are expected to abide by. when they do not, there should be a price to be paid. host: when she says shadow economy, what she talking about? guest: it could be a number of things. it could be undocumented workers. it could be this issue of ms. classifying someone who should be an employer as an independent contractor. under the obama administration's labor department this has been a high priority. it plays out not just in uber and the so-called gig economy. the labor department when a case
in 2011 that involved a contractor for time warner cable in ohio. a couple he called caste com had a number of employees classified as independent contractors. they were essentially employees. the labor department sued in federal court and one about $1.5 million for installers. the labor department sees it as trying to prevent the abuse of rules that are designed to give employees leverage. host: joe is next. hello. caller: thanks for taking my call. another form of slavery taking place all over america. we have a couple of companies that hire people to work in
manufacturing facilities and pay them eight dollars an hour with no benefits, no unemployment compensation should they be laid off. basically, treat them as trash. eight dollars per hour. this is happening in the manufacturing society because japanese manufacturing assembly plants like toyota and honda first brought this idea to us to higher nothing but temps to manufactured goods. profits all go to these corporations. i am a republican and i believe in things like fair trade and fair wages because america must come back from the abyss it is in now. we have got to have revenue again. giving out $40 per hour union jobs for eight dollars an hour. the 16.5% they are paying in social security does not cover. i hope you have some good comments. thank you for taking my call. guest: temping is another piece
of the evolution of the economy. in the manufacturing sector, it's bike in the 1990's. the early 1990's -- it spiked in the early 1990's. in that decade it expanded quite a bit. now what we see is it is not expanded but it is cyclical. in the aftermath of a recession you see a rise in the number of temps. first layoffs and then rehired again. economist susan housman has done a lot of research on this and she calculates about a third of the swing of employment pre-and post recession comes from temps being laid off and hired again. host: this is can -- this is kenneth from texas. caller: i would like to explain that overtime was not designed
to be a reward for working over 40 hours. overtime came around in the depression when people were not hiring and they were working other people excessive hours. the deal was, overtime was a penalty to the employer for not hiring enough people and working too many people overtime and people think it is a reward for working overtime. overtime was designed to have the employer hire more people and get to the 40 hour workweek instead of working people 80 or 90 hours per week. it is not a reward for working over 40. it was a penalty to the employer and people have it misunderstood and that is the reason why overtime came about. i think anyone -- we should try to get back to the 40 hour work week. some countries have less than that.
i believe the employers should either hire more people and work them less hours or they should pay the overtime and deal with it. we need to spread the wealth around. guest: i think there are always two motivations, preventing people from being exploited tens of hours additionally for no compensation. the caller is right. there is concern that this has an effect on hiring. the flipside is the administration does believe for those people whose hours get rolled back to 40 there probably will be some benefit to hiring across the economy. the thing critics complain is a major defect of this regulation, the administration holds up as a potential benefit to the economy. host: sammy from since invoke
south carolina -- simpson ville south carolina. caller: i was wondering why do you not let the voters vote on the situation instead of the president all over the air? [indiscernible] letting people vote on it. guest: the law was passed in 1938 by congress. the law allows the department of labor to implement the law be a regulation. this has happened several times over the years. it happened in 1940, the adjusted the salary threshold.
they put it up to $200 a month. 1950's, they tweaked the law including our so-called long test so that if you make a lower salary you could still theoretically be exempt if you past the rigorous test to demonstrate that you were an executive or manager of some kind. in 1935 the foot -- in 1975 the ford administration upgraded the threshold. after the initial law was passed , the executive branch had a lot of authority on how to adjust the law overtime. that is the same authority the administration is using to make these changes. there is a 75 year precedent of administrations doing this. it is not unique to the obama administration. host: our guest talking about overtime rules proposed. caller: good morning.
my 25-year-old daughter was telling me about these young people that are getting on social security disability. i guess there has been an upswing in this from somewhere around 2006 up to 2009 in 2010. these people are getting on disability, young people 20 or 30 years old and they realize they're only getting $450 a month as they've only worked so many years. she told me a lot of these guys and gals are going out and getting jobs that are paying them under the table. how many people are doing this? guest: i have not heard that. there is always asserting -- a certain amount of gaming in the system. i've not heard of it as a widespread phenomenon that is not to say that it does not happen. host: the supreme court decided to take up a case taking a look at unions and dues.
usa today says, the court signaled it may be prepared to strike down laws -- posing a threat to organize labor. justices agreed to hear a california case in a term beginning next on challenging the requirement that teachers contribute to unions. host:guest: this issue relates to the idea of the right to work state. in the private sector, there is over 20 states that passed right to work laws. even if you are in a union job and you benefit from collective bargaining, the union helps negotiate your salary protections if you get in trouble union will protect you -- will represent you in litigation. you can up out not just of joining the union, but paying a
fee to cover all the expenses unions incur in defending you. this has existed in the private sector for decades. there are a few states that have passed right to work laws more recently. it has not existed for decades in the public sector. any teacher firefighter municipal employee, all of those people are in union jobs and if they choose not to join the union they still have to pay the fee that is equivalent to a union due. that has made it easier for unions like the teachers unions to build up membership. if you know you will have to pay the fee anyway, it makes sense to join the union at the same time. this decision -- if the supreme
court were to find for the plaintiff, that would deal a major blow to the public sector and union organizing model. you would have a number of people who could benefit from collective bargaining and the protections of the union but were not have to join the union or pay a fee. the unions expect membership to decline dramatically if this were the case. it is a landmark issue that could have indications for tens of millions of people. host: one of the arguments -- what are the arguments? guest: typically: version. in this case -- typically coer sion. unions lobby the state legislators and issue ads in political races. if you pay these fees, your money is essentially going to support this clinical activity. i think the argument that plaintiff is making, i should not be compelled to engage in
this political activity i being compelled to pay these fees. host: our guest is no shriver -- noam scheiber. caller: i cannot help but notice that this is an example where a democratic legislation has been put forth to protect workers that are being exploited. it was mentioned previously that bush had rolled back those protections and yet so many of the callers that call in on the republican line seem to be misinformed. one of the comments i want to make is that they need to get out of their media bubble. so many of the comments characterize the president as a tyrant versus putting forth something that protects workers. i do not understand how it is that they could continue to listen to fox news and these talk radio hosts and continue to
vote against their interests. guest: as i mentioned there has been a 75 year tradition of presidents addressing this law in one direction or another. bush used the same power. the bush's labor department used the same power in 2004. i do think people who think this is a technical move or -- a tyrannical move our misinformed about the origins of the law. host: these rules proposed by the administration. thank you for your time. coming up but we will take a look at campaign 2016, how it is shaping up in light of recent decisions. paul waldman and james antle
will join us next for that discussion. robin for his odd will be here to talk about the financial crisis facing greece and puerto rico and how it could impact your bottom line. i want to tell you about our newsmakers program that you can see at this program at 10:00. our guest is met schlep -- matt schlaoapp. [video clip] >> i heard on the radio today he was talking about illegal immigrants. i think his tone and the words he chose were different from the words i would use. when you have a broken immigration system is hard to characterize the nature of the illegal immigrants that come into our country. i believe that immigration is a wonderful part of our history. part of our history i embrace.
i think it is part of our economy that we really have to get right. right now it is broken. i think what president obama has done with these executive orders have made the system worse and we have destroyed the ability to get bipartisan compromise on the steps we need to take as congress. i think it is easy for people to attack donald trump over what he said. i actually know donald trump. he is not a racist. he is trying to characterize the fact that a broken immigration system can lead to problems like crime if you do not know what is happening. the challenge i argue, do we actually know everything about this population that we think we know? this is legal population. -- this illegal population. i think we ought to embrace all those folks who can make america better and help grow our economy. that is the filter i put it through. >> your thoughts in terms of
trump as a candidate. this time he's actually in the race, a very crowded field. some wonder if it creates a circus like atmosphere because of his penchant for statements that gather a lot of attention. is he a good voice to have in a debate at this point? >> i think there is a political click in republican and conservative circles. donald trump is outside. he is not the candidate that a lot of people would probably favor. he resonates with a lot of americans. it is undeniable. host: if you want to see that whole conversation, it is on our newsmakers program. you can see it right after this program today at 10:00. you can see it again this evening at 6:00. we will take a look at politics
particularly presidential politics. james antle for the washington examiner. paul waldman of the american prospect. thank you for joining us. how do you think 2016 as a campaign issue been up differently than the previous psych or -- the previous cycle? james: normally you know who the republican nominee is going to be at this early point. the republicans have a tendency to give away their presidential nomination like a company used to give away a gold watch for retirement. it was really a question of how difficult some challenger is going to make it for the inevitable nominee to get the nomination. this time it looks like the democrats are more in that position. the democrats have a tendency to be more likely to nominate unknown candidates. while bernie sanders is surging
in new hampshire and iowa it does not look likely -- it looks that we know who the democratic nominee is and the republicans are this jumble of 10 to 15 candidates. a lot of them are really pulling closely together and we do not know who the nominee is going to be. paul: it is a fascinating free-for-all. i think we're up to 16 candidates watch john kasich gets in and stop walker -- and scott walker. we are coming to the end of eight years of a democratic administration. the republican party is trying to figure out who it is. in that situation you have a lot of pent up demand of people who have been waiting for their chance to reach for that brass ring. all of these different forces within the party, the tea partiers and washington-based establishment. maybe a resurgent neocon movement. all of these movements that have the incentive to try to burst
forth. that is why you get 16 different candidates. it makes for a fascinating race. host: what do you think will be the largest forces are going to be that shape that going forward? paul: i think the biggest challenge is to define themselves in terms that are not necessarily just about barack obama. it is natural in the opposition that you determine -- that that is what determines what your issues are. they have been fighting against the affordable care act for years and what it means to be a republican for the last few years has been defined in terms of how do you oppose barack obama. how deep is your loathing for him? which issues that he had been pushing are you most opposed to? that is not necessarily a bad thing. it happens whenever there is some party that is in and one that is out but they will have to figure out a way to present
something to the public to say this is what the republican party is that is not just about how much we hate these things barack obama does. host: you talked about bernie sanders. is there some type of soul-searching in the democratic party as well? mr. -- is mr. sanders challenging what it means to be a democrat? james: i think even dating back to the 1990's there was some degree of aggressive discontent with the clintons connections to wall street. they're more hawkish than the generic liberal foreign-policy. some of this has come out again with the clinton foundation and its closeness to some well-heeled donors. i think bernie sanders will tap into a certain degree of that. i think that he does not have a diverse t enough coalition to
effectively challenge clinton but i think he can get a lot of these issues highlighted and potentially influence how hillary clinton positions herself as she tries to consolidate support. host: you heard from our guests about 2016. if you want to ask questions of our guests, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can tweak your thoughts as well. how much is double a factor now for the gop? -- how much is donald trump a factor for the gop? james: he is second in some polls in new hampshire and nationally. i think the first thing he does,
because he sucks up so much media oxygen, he will get a lot of attention by virtue of who he is and his propensity to make inflammatory statements. i think he also will affect the ability of under -- of other candidates to get their name out there. there is a conservative primary within the republican primary. i think a lot of trump's gains have come at the expense of people like scott walker, mcnitt it more difficult for maybe a marco rubio to really a step -- making it more difficult for maybe marco rubio or other candidates to establish themselves as a front runner. it might make it in a way that jeb bush faces a less viable conservative challenger host:. host:do you think it forces candidates to nail down positions on immigration? james: i think it does to an
extent it also makes it easier for republican candidates to take a wide variety of positions and still have rhetoric on immigration that is more restrained. i think that is going to be a big thing on how trump affects republican primaries. how do other candidates react? on the one hand, trump has the potential to defined the republican race as a clown show but on the other hand he gives republicans flexibility to look more safe in contrast. paul: one possibility is they are able to use him as a foil and say i am more moderate on issues. the other way it might play out he is kind of an expression of the conservative id, taking a harsh personal terms in the way he talks about immigrants. there may be no challenger that will be more important in the
transition from the primaries to the general, to be able to turn around from the primaries where there is necessarily going to be a lot of tough talk on immigration and to say to minority voters that i can be your friend and you can find a home in the republican party. it is a difficult transition to make them when you have someone you're the top of the republican field saying all mexican immigrants are rapists, that sends a message to those voters that the republican party is not the place for them. a message of hostility. that makes it so the nominee is going to have to work extra hard to be able to say, do not worry about that that happened during the primary, come and vote for me. it was a challenge mitt romney and john mccain mccain were not able to do successfully. host: brian is from louisville, kentucky. you are on with our guests. caller: i hear the right-wing
media talk a lot about hillary clinton and completely ignore bernie sanders. do you believe that they are trying to push for hillary to be the elected candidate for the democratic party? it seems like bernie sanders is gaining steam. i see him being the candidate. paul: i do not think the conservative media are necessarily not paying enough attention to bernie sanders out of some sort of strategic calculation. the fact is, hillary clinton is somebody who has been hated by conservatives for a couple of decades now. you are part of that media universe you think she will be the nominee and that is where you'll focus your attention. sanders is starting to get more attention especially as he has huge crowds he is been gathering
in places in iowa and new hampshire. i think it may be that people on the conservative media will pay more attention to him. as long as they think henry clinton is the nominee, that is where the focus is -- as long as they think hillary clinton is the nominee, that is where the focus is going to be. host: the wall street journal headline. what does that mean for hillary clinton? paul: he is sort of the perfect opponent for her to have. he creates a robust abate within the party on all kinds of issues -- debate within the party on all kinds of issues. we have seen her she has moved further on some issues than she has in the past. he also is not somebody who is going to be airing really nasty attack ads and being personal and creating a nasty race which often happens and will inevitably happen on the republican side when you have so many candidates.
someone who has participated in a campaign, debates and she will have to fight for the boats but she will not -- fight for the votes but she will not be splattered in my. ud. james: this member of right-wing media would love it if bernie sanders was the nominee. sanders is tapping into something that is real and he is demonstrating that there is a level of support for things to the left of what has here to for been the mainstream of the democratic party. raising a lot of economic fairness issues that i think resonate with primary voters. in many ways it is good from hillary clinton's perspective to have a challenger who is strong enough to make her nimble and give her some degree of preparation for the general but not so strong and hostile and negative that it does anything to drive up her un-favorability
as a result of the primary campaign. host: what makes this time different for mr. sanders? james: bernie sanders went from being a single digit fringe, third-party candidate in his first statewide races and vermont and now he is a guy who could get reelected statewide in vermont with more than 70% of the vote. vermont is an interesting state. a gun friendly but also very progressive state in many other ways. i think we have seen a lot of progressive primary challengers emerge. what has generally been the case is that their base of support is too confined to affluent white liberals. they are not sufficient to beat a democratic front runner. barack obama assembled a perfect coalition to defeat hillary clinton in 2008. i think we forget because of how rapidly she fell how narrow
obama's victory over clinton actually was. i think we have seen from howard dean, bernie sanders even bill bradley briefly, a number of candidates raise a more populist team in the primaries. it takes more than that to get over the top. host: this time is different for mr. sanders? paul: i think he is tapping into something that is real in the democratic party. there may be discomfort with people who are now turning out to sanders rallies, they will come around if she is the nominee. it is not out of some kind of dissatisfaction or dislike with her specifically. they like the fact that sanders is speaking to issues of political corruption and economic inequality which clinton is speaking on too. a lot of mixed feelings among liberals in washington with
clinton. it is important to remember she is very popular with the democratic base. once this primary plays out and she ends up being the nominee those supporting sanders will come around. he is a great vehicle for them to express those feelings they have about these kinds of issues and their dissatisfaction with the way they have been talked about the last few years. he is drawing on something very real but it is not necessarily a revolt against clinton. host: john in kentucky is next. caller: i want to talk about the candidates. donald trump is right on. what he said is not offensive. he said some of them is good people. the good people is coming in this country legally. they get in line to come here legal. he did not say nothing
offensive. he is right. close to our town we got a legals coming in -- illegals coming in. they break the law and do not show up for court if they are caught. they do not follow fish and wildlife laws. they are all here illegal. he is a guy that will fix this. all you news people underestimate him. i run a business and i talked to thousands of people. everybody is tired of this. they want it fixed. none of the candidates except him will fix it. host: we're underestimating donald trump. james: i'm not underestimating the way donald trump speaks to concerns the republican base has. whether he speaks in a way that is as articulate as it needs to
be is really what i would question. in many respects if i am jeb bush i would much rather have an immigration debate with donald trump than with scott walker or jeff sessions. i would much prefer having my main conservative alternative be somebody like trump or ben carson or even rand paul. to a certain degree -- jeb bush is well-positioned to pivot away from anything donald trump says if you the nominee so he does not have to worry quite as much about trump's branding of the party as some of the more conservative candidates would have to be concerned. paul: two ambulance to this -- elements to this, policy choices and attitude and posturing people do. what message that sends. on the policy choices, jeb bush
may have a mexican wife and kid to speak spanish and he speaks spanish and self but he offering essentially the same policies republican candidates are. this caller is a good example of why copperheads of immigration reform is so hard to get in washington. i promise you he has a republican representative and that representative knows his constituents are not interested in conference of reform -- comprehensive reform. that representative will say, we do not want copperheads of reform. -- comprehensive reform. you get this gridlock that means reform never gets past. that is also something for the republican candidates to grapple with. they now have to say border security is the first thing we have to do and eventually we will get around to the path to citizenship and see what happens. they will be required, in order
to repeal -- in order to appeal to voters, to put emphasis on the border security element. even latino voters who get jeb bush and say he does not have hostility to me that other candidates might have but he still is advocating for a set of policy solutions i do not really like. the question is, how important is the policy part going to be and how important will be attitudinal part b? e? host: johnny in louisiana. caller: i personally would like to see bernie sanders. i could just imagine if the republicans went with either donald trump or dr. ben carson or even this ceo lady that is running as a republican, if they were to be nominated. i believe we need to send a
message to both the democratic party and the republican party. i can imagine both conventions -- we need to send a message to both parties because all of these candidates that i see with the republican party, including hillary clinton are filled with egos. they need a wake-up call. paul: there is always a limit on how far these outsider candidates like ben carson or donald trump can go. people say both for me because i am not a politician. it is like someone saying, i know you have leaky pipes but i'm the one to come and fix them because i'm an accountant. being a politician requires certain skills and it takes time to learn and be good at. that is why most of those is this -- people from other fields do not win or in of
not doing a great job ameren office. there are few exceptions to that rule. i think what happens with a candidate like ben carson's they come in and there is something compelling because they are different at first and then they get a feeling -- then they hit a ceiling. we have seen this many times before. i think it is unlikely that he, carly fiorina or donald trump that anyone of them will be successful. politics is not easy. it usually takes a few times to get it right. all of the most successful politicians in recent history all had a loss early in their career that taught them a lot. it was a learning process that happened over many elections before they got to a point where they could win a presidential election. i do not begin will happen for one of these outliers. james: i think the emergence of ben carson has been an interesting phenomenon. objectively it is difficult to
see in terms of what makes his political philosophy unique to other more experienced candidates running. he does have a compelling biography. he is literally a brain surgeon. he had a high degree of success outside of the political field. he is resonating with a lot of grassroots conservatives. carly fiorina does very well when she speaks to conservative audiences and is very well received. has not really translated that much into scientific poll results. she is starting to do better in major conservative organization straw polls. it will be interesting to see if she qualifies for the debates and whether she can move into the top tier. host: with so many on the republican side, does this mean a battle completely for the primary or will it come sooner? james: political journalists are
always looking forward to there being a broker convention and the primaries lasting until the end and going past the primaries. you can look at the scenario and see with this many candidates and so many of them -- you have about six who are basically not far off from one another in terms of statistical significance. historically, usually there is a sorting. if you have gone through iowa, new hampshire and south carolina and you have not won the states it becomes difficult to continue and raise money. usually, there are events such as the primaries, but even the debates and some of the events that happened before the primary. there is always there probably will be some kind of windowing. normally, the front runner for
the republican is up by a wide margin. they may be 20 30, 40, or even 50 points ahead and then it narrows. right now, jeb bush is the closest a we have for a front runner and even the candidates in the back in the 1% or 2% of the vote are maybe 10 or 15 points behind and that encourages a lot to stay in the race. host: that is james antle you just heard from. also joining us is paul waldman a senior writer for that publication. indianapolis indiana, judy, you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say that donald trump represents the republican party. there was no way that people can think this man does not represent the republican party. when you think about a party who has done all the things that they have done since they have been in power in the states,
they have invented people who have died in their states from having insurance, they have squashed down pay so that people are having two or two or three jobs in order to have a decent pay -- these are people -- ok, i could understand the ones who eliminate abortion but why did they have to close the entire clinic? because women have to have more medical care than an abortion. women have all kinds of medical care. i thank god i had my surgery before the loud people got in. these are people who have prevented people from being able to vote, these are people who house people who love the confederate flag, the kkk, these are people who have said nasty things about immigrants. that man represents the republican party. if people would just look and have enough sense to see how these people have been governing america -- host: judy, thank you.
the idea that donald trump represents the republican party question mark guest: i was look to democratic side to see who represents the republican party. yes, i think that will be a significant talking point the longer trump runs. any outlandish thing that he says or hyperbolic thing he says will be used to beat of the republicans and they will find other republicans who have won elected office to try and get and draw similarities. i think that is really going to be the challenge for republican candidates. how do you differentiate and distinguish yourself from this kind of stuff? while at the same time not trying to give it more attention than it deserves? there are some republican candidates who i'd consomme say ignore donald trump because they say giving him attention is precisely what he wants and will
feed the phenomenon and it is better to allow him his 15 minutes of fame and then to sort of path is poll numbers after the us to get closer, which is what i expect to happen. facts on the ground will determine that. host: mr. waldman? guest: trump is a unique celebrity, late-night comedians love to mock him, democrats cannot be more excited about him being in the race. candidates usually drop out when they run out of money. whatever else happens and they get to the point where they cannot fund their campaigns is when they finally leave. trump will not run out of money. he will stay in until he gets bored. it is possible he could be in for a long time if he does not get lord, even if he never gets above 10% or 12%. whatever it is at now. he could continue to be a headache for the republican field for a long time. host: john from florida.
thank you for holding on. good morning. go ahead. caller: i hope you give me enough time as you did that democrat there. donald trump made my day the other day. a lot of people is going to vote for him on account of what he said. just the other day, two days ago, and only -- deported seven times [indiscernible] and san francisco would not turn him in the federal people and they just turned him loose and this is going on all over the place. everything he says is the truth and jeb bush, i don't know how he got number one, i would not even let him clean my septic tank out. this guy is something else.
he's like georgie junior and i am in my middle 70's. donald trump is going to be the guy to get. i've got people that i know, hundreds of them without a job these illegals is coming in and taking their jobs trying to get more jobs. they let 52 million people in here since 2006, taking all american jobs. i've got family that don't have any jobs on account of them. they are destroying this country coming in here turning it into a third world country. host: ok, john. thank you. talk about jeb bush and the florida factor. what are the strengths and liabilities keep bases because of his government chip in florida? paul waldman? guest: he has successes to tout. he had the good fortune to be in there when the bubble was inflating and got out when it
first. it will be interesting to see the florida primaries, it is like one of the final big contest before the republican nominee, especially if he is really determined. we don't really know yet whether he will have more support their been marco rubio does. that is going to be really interesting to see. obviously, there are lord of voters who do not like him -- there are voters in florida who do not like him. it usually happens, as we talked about before, that in the republican race, there is somebody who is tthey have prevailed for a number of reasons. even though voters like that colin may not like him, they end up not being the majority of the republican elector even though they may have the most intense the means and the loudest. i am sure that bush is counting on those people sticking around for a while and then it eventually slipping away or coming over to him as the candidates that speak more directly to their anger kind of
follow up one by one. host: mr. ansell? -- mr. antle? guest: i think there has been a lot of talk about giuliani approach with his campaign ended up being a disaster wants primaries rolled around. in this case, giuliani effectively waited insult florida could really compete in the state and rode up all the early states. by the time it got to florida the entire race had passed him by. if the current thinking is that florida is going to be a battle royale between jeb bush and marco rubio and most of the candidates will sit about, there will be one crucial difference. either job or rubio would have to win florida, so somebody would win florida. giuliani did not even win florida but he did get a respectable third place. there would be a possibility that that could be a more viable
strategy. i think of that even if you are as well-known as a jeb bush and florida's a state you may be able to win, if some other candidate ends up sweeping those early states are winning the bulk of those early states that come before florida, the race could end up passing by. i think jeb is probably the weakest establishment candidate we have seen and frankly, it has been -- there has been better campaigns since 2008 and 2012. host: he is weak because of why? guest: if you look at terms of support. if you compare the percentage of people voting for him or say they will vote for him at a point where his main identification should be in a fitting him most, he is barely distinguishing himself in kohl's from people like ben carson who are not very well known or my company.
he is weak in that sense. i do not think other than mitt romney he has really scared anybody out of the race. i think the hope was that he would follow his brother strategy for the nomination. he would come in, raise a lot of money, consolidate a lot of support across the spectrum of the republican party and most potentially viable candidates take a pass on the race and that is really not what is happening. host: john is up next. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i agree with the previous collar and i am glad to hear donald trump finally speak the truth. politicians don't say on either side what is going on, problems of immigration and it is conference of immigration reform -- what is that? they broke the law. let's enforce the law. let's adopt mexico in the policy, maybe that will not affect people so much?
people finally hear the one politician speak the truth and everybody is ready to crucify him. thank you. host: anything from that, mr. waldman? guest: we hear lots of people talk about donald trump and those feelings about immigration are very strong in the republican party and candidates are trying to figure out how to speak to that and still remain viable for the general election. this happens on a lot of issues. it is to in both parties but now it is more acute in the republican party that on a whole bunch of issues, if they really say the things that the primary voters want to hear then there will be a lot of issues that they have to answer for the general electorate that will make it uncomfortable. on the democratic side, it's hillary clinton comes out and says she wants a higher minimum wage and democratic voters cheer, that will not do her any damage when it comes to the general election because that is a generally popular position to take.
every candidate is kind of trying to negotiate that. there was something interesting going back to jeb bush, there is an interesting generational divide where you have a bunch of candidates in their 40's, rubio scott walker, bobby jindal, you have these very, very young candidates that look different from the traditional person the republicans nominate. jeb bush looks like the typical got a nominate, but one thing that barack obama showed things -- people like rubio and walker and ted cruz is that you do not have to wait your turn. even if you have only been in the senate for less than a full term and you think you want to be president, you can go for it. that is the lesson they took from barack obama, and now you are seeing this wave of younger republican candidates in thing i do not have to wait even if i don't have many accomplishments this because, even if i'm still in my 40's, i can go for it. all but one of those people will be unsuccessful, but one of those different republicans may end up winning. host: lets you from johnny in oklahoma.
democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, john. caller: yes? host: john, you are on the air, go ahead. caller: yes sir. i just wanted to stop and tell you about the price of gasoline seems as if everybody is going around saying there is not going to be any more taxes, but the american public is not stupid. if you are paying two times as much for gasoline as -- then you are paying twice as much in taxes. they keep talking about minimum wage. they should start talking about maximum wage. there has got to be -- yet, the price of gas has to be four dollars a gallon? i think the republicans and the democrats and all the other people in the united states have lost their minds by letting these people make so much money
while the people in the united states suffer for it. the governor of the state of oklahoma had the audacity to get on television and say, look, we have got to do something about the price of oil. it is going down and it is killing our taxes. well, what do you think is doing to the constituents when they are paying three dollars or four dollars a gallon? diesel fuel is higher than gas and it is a byproduct? host: ok, johnny, thank you. let me ask you two things. first fall the candidates are talking about economics, and specifically mr. bush and mrs. clinton, their ability to address because of their wealth may challenge them going forward into the campaign, mr. waldman? guest: i don't think it is as much of an issue for clinton. if you are a democrat, you will be advocating things more geared
toward ordinary people minimum wage, changing work roles to be more fair for workers and if you are republican, you will be an advocate for the wealthy and things like that. that is sort of the places voters start from. if you enforce that, the way mitt romney did, then it can be a problem. i don't think that too many people are going to vote against hillary clinton because she is too much on the side of rich people. it will not be that big a deal. economics is the biggest challenge for both sides and it is to articulate some kind of an agenda that speaks to the way people are beginning to understand the economy. i think it has the real problem for republicans because their message is pretty simple. growth is really the end. if we can let the commission through on things like we advocate for taxes and regulation, then do will be growth and the jobs will follow. the problem now is if you look at what is happening right now we have very strong job growth
and have had for some time, but people feel insecure. they feel like they are being stretched, so what a lot of people are looking for is some kind of agenda that speaks in a more complex way to the challenges people have with work , the difficulty of paying for health care, getting benefits, and feeling secure in your job and in your whole career that go beyond just, do we create enough jobs last month? that is something both parties are trying to figure out how to do. it looks like the democrats are pulling -- are putting out more of an agenda, obama just change overtime rules, and they are trying to come up with this slate of things that says, we are going to change the conditions of the american workplace and adapt to how it has changed in the last decades. whereas republicans are still saying, if we just enact these policies, we will get more growth and jobs. the question is, would that be enough to convince people that is an economic agenda that will
work? host: mr antle? guest: you have seen jeb bush say he will push for economic growth and that the percent or 4% growth will end up with more jobs and higher incomes and other candidates are making similar comments. you are starting to see some degree of tension in the republican party over how corporate the party is perceived to be. that has led some to challenge the corporate welfare and the export and import bank became an issue over the debate. it is a factor in how some republicans approach immigration. jeff sessions has been trying to get more integration restriction to be framed and dave brat as well in his primary victory to be framed as more pro-worker and anticorporate rather than an anti-immigrant framing. we are starting to hear some republican arguments as to how approach things from a more
populous perspective. the democrats, i think, are the have a much more detailed program that is trying -- that sort of fits into their populous frame, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out for the republicans. host: on weekends, this program is seen internationally including the united kingdom and that is where the next phone call comes from. aaron, hello. go right ahead. caller: three quick i don't want to keep you too long. hillary clinton, i mean, she has been around for like forever. she was bill clinton's husband -- first lady, a politician in new york and we never saw the end of her at any point, so for me, there is no excitement around are being president. i am very side that i feel that way but bernie sanders, he sounds like an interesting guy. he has some good ideas. his social media campaign is really good as well, so i think you might do really well.
donald trump, i mean, i remember a couple of years ago i watched the wwe and he was on wrestlemania 23 and i remember him having this really awkward storyline with one and it all ended with trump shaving his head live and i just thought you know? something that ridiculous? how did he end up in this situation now? has everyone completely forgotten all of that and all the ridiculous stuff he has done in the last couple of years? host:mr. antle do you want to start? guest: jesse ventura is the minnesota governor. you never know. i do think an advantage for republican hats this time is that they have the possibility
of nominating the candidate who is the pressure face. normally, it is the democrats who end up having the lesser-known, fresher candidate, the younger candidate. i think that is also going to be an obstacle for jeb bush because i think jeb bush is the viable candidate who was clearly cuts off that opportunity for republicans. i think that is going to be a big part of the argument made by a lot of the younger republican candidates who are running. hillary clinton, i think, the main thing she will do to cheer up enthusiasm is the historic nature potentially being the first woman president, but i think that will to some extent counteract the staleness. i do think that is unfamiliar territory for the democrats. host: who is the strongest and freshest face in the republican field? guest: i think if they could design a candidate in the lab, it would probably be marco rubio. if you look at polling, rand
paul is doing surprisingly competitively against hillary clinton, not only in national polling but a number of the swing states. both are very different approaches. i think rubio, his freshness comes from his relative youth and his biography, and his personality and i think rand paul in trying to reframe the republican platform in a way that is a little bit different without really deviating from conservative vegetables but using libertarianism -- conservative principles but using libertarianism to reach out to some voters, including minority voters that republicans have struggled to connect with. host: mr. waldman? guest: as we get closer to next november the prospect of having the first woman president will become a very, very cap -- powerful thing. i think hillary clinton has been around with us for a years now so we sort of forgot about how dramatic that might be. i think that once it becomes a real possibility, that will
become a huge motivator for women voters and other people like male voters who would like to see the first female president, and it will bring her campaign and some of that excitement that we associate with those russia faces like barack obama was. host: that bring around the sander supporters? guest: i don't worry from the democratic standpoint whether or not voters will one to turn out. those voters who are supporting sanders right now, they do not yet have a focus for their dislike. when you get tour that general election that is another thing that happens. a politician from the other side to may not have caps on feelings , normally, you get very strong feelings about how much you dislike them and that becomes important to get people out. republicans already dislike hillary clinton, so she comes pre-disliked. that is not a problem for the republican nominee, but that will happen with democrats for whoever the republicans
nominate. host: one more call. cliff in san angelo, texas. the morning, cliff. caller: good morning. this political correctness is really driving everybody nuts. it truly is. let me just say this about mr. waldman a minute ago when he made a statement that donald trump said that all the illegals are rapists. that is what mr. waldman said. that is a lie. that is not what donald trump said. he may have said some of them are, but he did not say all of them are. this is the kind of ring that with just common sense american people who have been used to america being the great country it is, it is sick and tired of. as far as the united states, the republicans saying that we just need to create more jobs and get the economy booming and that is their answer, you left out half
of the equation. and that is we have also said -- our future is greece if we keep spending at the rate we are spending now. it is common sense. political correctness aside, it is just common sense. the other thing is, is that it is very difficult and makes my heart sick truly, even though i am one of these mean republicans, how are we going to employ a lot of our youth today? i don't care what colors they are. i love all colors, but how are we going to employ them when they have tattoos, pierced ears, and they don't even know who the first president of the united states was? who is going to employ them? host: cliff, thank you. mr. waldman? guest: i don't think that is often too much what people took from him that they are all good people, but the whole issue of government spending has not been
as intense as it sometimes is because the practice it has brought down significantly. it reached its height in 2010, about one year after obama took office but it is down about one third from what it was then. right now one of the next fights he will have is on whether or not we should be repealing sequestration. i don't know -- there are always going to be people who have a sense that we are spending too much. when the rubber meets the road, it turns out that people just want to cut spending on the things a do not like anyway. and they want to preserve the things they do like. republicans always talk about government spending, but they want to increase spending on the military which all the candidates on the republican side one to increase military spending but the question of someone he do increase more than others. -- wanting to increase more than others. those are issues we talk about
in fake terms but when it gets -- in fake terms but when it gets down to it, i don't -- there is a reason why you have not seen more progress in the deficit when republicans have been in office recently been when democrats have been in office because they find the same things. a campaign and say they want to cut spending, but when we actually have to, in real programs that you will cut that have constituencies and that people like, it becomes a lot more difficult. i'm not anticipating the next president will make the medic spending cuts either. host: mr. anmtle? guest: i think democrats at the same do that they do not want to cut. barack obama campaigned in 2008 that he would cut taxes and have them be a lower percentage of gdp than ronald reagan did while proposing a lot of public investments. i think one of the things i think you're hearing from a lot of republican callers and one of
the things i think is driving a lot of terms of peel is that many conservatives and republicans do not think the gop leadership fights for them. they don't sense they are particularly sympathetic to their interest and that they are insufficiently combative on issues branching from immigration to spending to obamacare. i think that any candidate that will tap into that, and that is of a driving force of the tea party, any candidate that can tap in will find a constituency. host: taking a look at 2016 with our guests, james antle, a politics editor and paul waldman , senior writer. you are for the conversation. coming up, we will take a look at grace. many people mentioning it or in the course of the program. roben farzad of npr will be here to talk about the crisis not only facing greece but puerto rico as well. we will have that conversation as "washington journal" continues after this. ♪
>> men and woman believed to be part of a nationalist gang that attempted us on national -- the assassination of president truman from the visitors gallery of the house of representatives. five congressmen were hit and then clifford davis of tennessee, kenneth roberts of alabama, george h allen of maryland, and out of bentley in michigan who was seriously injured. the gun wielders and their conferences though through the evil distention of having perpetrated a criminal outrage almost unique in america's history. >> it was one of the most violent act that ever occurred
in the chamber. there were debates right after that that we cannot let this happen again. what we need to do is walled off the visitors gallery with bulletproof gas -- classic so that this can never happen again. -- glass so that this can never happen again. the more that members talked about it, they said it was a bad idea. this is the people's house and they cannot be walled off from what is going on. >> the capitol building is a symbol and that makes it a target. they mention the british built -- burnt the building and there was a bombing in world war i by a professor who was supposed to american supporting the allies there was the shooting in 1954. what happened in 1971 was a bomb said that as opposed to the vietnam war. there was another bombing in 1983 in the senate side by a group against reagan's policy. in 1998, there were two
policemen shot and killed. there have been instances over time, yet, the capital has remained remarkably opened building. >> don ritchie and former hospice story and ray smart on the history -- great smock on the history of the house and senate, its leaders, and prominent events tonight at 8:00 pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is roben farzad , the host of "full disclosure" on npr. here to talk about what is happening with greece and puerto rico when it comes to debt. in this simple terms you can what is going on in greece and what is taking close -- and what is this vote ticking place today? guest: kit is a battle for the european monetary union. these histrionics are set up by people -- adults in some court
of credit negotiation would be very sober minded. they would not be using words like hold off and terrorism in the press and whatnot, but the left leading leadership of greece which was installed this year, has effectively put out austerity and bailout measure that the imf and european unions have extended to greece, up to a popular vote which typically does not happen. there was confusion in the streets of athens. people go up to vote for a straight up yes or straight down no. in reality this bailout proposal does not even exist anymore. it expired. people don't know what they are voting for but you get the sense that the regime in athens once to use this as a negotiating chip when they turned back to brussels and say, look, you can only make our people swallow so much more austerity. give us the cash. it is kind of the game of chicken, a holdup thing. think of the other side. if everybody bodes no and you have to reissue currency and the
banks do not work for three weeks and there are huge lines think about how this makes europe look. you really want that? at the same time, brussels does not want to give the greeks and other, no questions asked bailout. they want austerity and a pound of flesh in exchange for the billions they are trying to give athens to get by. host: "the associated press" tweeted saying that there may be two choices on the ballot in greece but there are many possible reports that could come from it. how much debt does greece currently have? guest: the debt has been neutralized. right now, whatever debt they do have effectively brussels came not in 2012 and said that we are going to effectively make greases that ours. the question is there is about $1 billion of cash reserves in the banks. we are worried how they will make it to monday or tuesday. they have already put a limit -- you can only take out 60 euros for transaction.
there has been a run on the banks over there, so they need russells they need the imf to extend them billions of dollars to keep the entire financial system. it is not a matter of emotional value of greek debt but effectively it has been assumed by the stronger players in europe and the monetary union, mainly germany france to a lesser extent, and the bigger question in this is, if we do not exact some side -- some kind of austerity and pound of flesh out of europe, it will emanate to bigger economies, mainly spain. portugal, italy, ireland greece, and spain, it disseminates out to spain and then we are worried about ireland, then we worry about italy who has tons of product that. it makes greece look like venus compared to jupiter. the bigger concern, and this goes back -- the analogy only works in much of the lehman brothers. washington wanted -- did not want to bail everybody out in 2000 eight, wanted to set an
example but it turns out that letting lehman brothers go was far more costly than may be bailing it out ahead of time. host: we got information about greece the outstanding debt listed at two when it $63 billion. let's go with that but -- at 253 billion dollars. let's go at that, but started their problems? guest: they are part of the european monetary union and it sounds great when you no longer have to deal with exchange rates and the greeks can enjoy it referred rates of shipping, stable currency with germany and old deutsche mark as the linchpin of that currency, it supports you when times are good from the old banana republic deviations. the problem is there was no corporate governance at the central level in brussels or out of germany to make sure that the greeks and other peripheral and smaller economies were not overspending their budgets.
that they did not in fact -- they forgot that there was this monetary union that can be flashed -- can be flushed. medical costs, so when times are good, you can always concealed that but with the global recession happens like in the wake of 2007-2008, you can see where the weaker players are and you see a country like greece, which was really on nobody's radar systemically, it is not that big of an economy and really out bent its means and thought it would be hailed out. effectively, we are good for the money -- it happened before and now we are part of the union it is unthinkable that they will let us go. that only works to a certain extent. you have to turn to electorate and say, look we have to keep bailing out the pensioners in greece because the offer is just unthinkable for us and will take the entire continent down. host: we heard a little bit
about greece's issue. we will talk more about that but if you have questions, here is your chance to find out more. % for democrat. houthi 202-748-8000 for democrat. 202-748-8001 four republican. what mandates are they putting down? guest: you have to demand more out of pensioners. people who are retired there expect to get this much per and expect to have a certain cost of living and standard of living that includes medical expenses transportation subsidies. you have this coming back and telling greece to go back and exact more out of these people. look, it is not like this is a flush the. unemployment is anomaly at 25%. people cannot take cash out of their banks. you see these videos of
pensioners crying outside of banks and there is this idea of generational fairness. are we punishing -- one, are we punishing people in their 60's and 70's for the transgressions of a political leader one decade ago? and moreover, how would this affect their children and their grandchildren? there was no growth in this economy right now. step back from it. if there was no euro in greece if they had the drop month, they can always default and d value. the d and d option. you take the loan upfront and tours visit because it is so cheap, exports become cheap and it has a course of corrective factor. you cannot do that when you have given up monetary sovereignty to brussels. host: we have calls for you. the first one is joe in miami florida. you are on with our guest. good morning. caller: i was wondering, say
that greece votes to bend austerity votes against further austerity -- what would be the default of exiting the euro? what would be the effect of that on the value of the dollar? politico up or down? it appears to me -- would it go up or down? it seems to me that germany has an interest in keeping greece in the eurozone. that is keeping the euro cheap and that leads germany to have their export market and the dollar will -- the euro will
strengthen and the dollar will weaken and it will be good for american exporters. host: joe, thank you very much. guest: no one really knows because you have not had had an unwinding. this would be the most developed collapse in recent history. again, this is not some small or isolated latin american economy or to go back to the asian energy crisis in 1997 when the ripple effect could be contained to a certain extent. nobody understands. we don't even know what that means. in the meantime, you will have transactions occur in the paper called iou because in their interactive attained the euro and the new drachma, what our depositors who actually put euros in the bank going to get back in terms of drachma that the same time, international commodity are marginally euro and dollar denominated.
he were not buying oil in drop must, there are shortages as pharmacists are not filling prescriptions and supermarket shelves are not stock. the question -- the answer is nobody really knows. in a kind of traditional cause and effect thing, the flight to safety currency is a broad like the swiss franc, the u.s. dollar would be read down to safety but in this case, we do not know what happens systemically and institutionally. the following morning, let's say by wednesday, it is in the cards that the drachma is coming back and effectively, greece will default. which institution in london and paris have exposure to greek debt? intercompany debt, bank to bank, institution to institution? and which institutions in new york city and washington and san francisco have exposure to those institutions in the developed european economies and maybe
japan and china that have exposure? it is like a transitive thing and you can run this through all manners of monte carlo simulations and spreadsheets and nobody knows what that morning after his light. the comparison to lehman brothers are only so instructive but that gave us a flavor of what an uncontrolled kind of demolition or decoupling would be like. it is scary and i think that the left-leaning government in athens is using that to that advantage. look, you can certainly say that you are going to cut us off and we have to face the morning after, but it is much more expensive for you to do that than to come back to the table with us and push through a deal with dignity. host: ben from mclean virginia, on the democrat line. hi. caller: good morning. my question is turning to puerto rico for a minute -- how will puerto rico's economic problems, including impossible default -- a possible default, affect land
values in suburban areas where houses could be built and i understand there is a substantial housing deficit in puerto rico, and this would be over the short and medium term and how long do you anticipate that the median term might be? thank you. host: briefly paint the puerto rico situation. guest: a lot of people in the press cannot resist the chance to talk about these as parallel tracks and cautionary tales. puerto rico is not quite an american state but it has benefits that american citizens do. some of the transfer programs medicaid, medicaid plus, medicare the dollar denominated and it is one very critically where u.s. investors, who have been yield the pride for the last six or seven years, have been able to invest in for debt which is higher-yielding and at
the same time enjoy the municipal tax free benefit in the united states where you cannot get taxed on a federal level if you invest in any bonds and have that exception. there is this -- unibonds and had that exception. it is something they have admired for the better part of a decade. it lacks demographically hundreds of thousands of puerto rico lead the mainland and come to the united states. there is a tilt where older people are just -- there are not enough gainfully employed young people building up social program offers. what they have done in the government there has run up the tally on debt. you have something north of the $70 billion debt load and leadership came out this week and said it is unsustainable. we are need default and we will not make good on that. if you bring it back to something like suburban land value, that is just one tier of exposure that you will have it for rico can finally not pay the
debt and default. i think what will happen is a shock to the financial market in the united states we have a lot of complacent investors in high yield debt, not just municipal puerto rican debt. this has been a promiscuous environment over the last seven years for lending, and if you have a weak player suddenly say they are not good for the debt and if you will have a lot of corporate bond investors in the u.s. saying, oh, boy, maybe we should look at the corporate bond market again? maybe we should look at weaker states like mississippi, like oklahoma, name? it is tantamount to what you see in europe with the appraisal of greece's situation going to hit in italy and ireland and here you will see the credit situation in puerto rico which is after all not a massive layer in the landscape of american -- massive player in the landscape of american grand scheme of markets but it jumps
up to the stock market and you have a situation where maybe washington, d.c., gets caught in the bailout. that might be malodorous to the electorate of the united states. host: from eugene, oregon, here is von. caller: good morning. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: is it true that greece has been 2% income tax rate? and what is their age of retirement? guest: that is all up for grabs right now in the talk of the restructuring talk. the retirement age is supposed to be up, the income tax array a lot say it is a moot point because collection has been so poor. the situation right now in puerto rico, the sales tax has gone up in the last ditch effort to connect -- to collect revenue. it has been really a fiscal mess in athens. you have the monetary situation which is being run out of brussels and the tax situation domestically in athens and
negotiations with labor union and pension funds and retirement rates and whatnot. it is a very messy where brussels is demanding austerity but the governments have brought in anti-austerity at the -- have to turn around and in order to get the money to keep banks of flow, keep supermarket shelves full, convinced pensioners that you need to take another cram down. there are talks that this could be a rumor and the worst euphemism ever, a haircut to push through to bank depositors where you think you have 200,000 euros in your deposit and you might take a 30% cut. if they agree to take -- tell it take that out before there is a depreciation or change in the draw,, you are going to have -- change in the draw,, you are going to have a change in the euro. we -- that is a brutal measure
and we have seen it in other economies before. you keep the leadership in? q -- on the leadership that is actually low to increase the sales tax rate or the income tax rate? host: pat is up next. go ahead. caller: hello. my question is, is it true that goldman sachs charged 300 million euros to get them into the eurozone in the first place? guest: when the news broke out in 2010 and in the period of introspection after our financial crisis, a lot of people wrote how wall street firms enabled enabled this debt and assumption and looking the other way when institutions, not just brussels or the european union or monetary union, should have put a really pair of cold
eyes to the books. everybody looked how their way and just collected off the top and the allegation, i don't know to what extent it is to that goldman sachs benefited from that, but there are various financial institutions that benefited. this brings the analogy back to the financial crisis we had. many firms just looked the other way when the entire economy was over indebted. they were happy to collateralize, they were happy to extend debt knowing perhaps in the back of their minds that the unthinkable is to unthinkable. the government would not just let the economy fall into depression and there would ultimately be a bailout. maybe you are seeing some of that in athens. host: from texas, and dan, good morning. you are on. caller: yes, i wanted to ask your guests -- i am an elderly man that a long time ago i read an article in one of the
magazines in music about the european common market. it mentioned in there that u.s. appropriations and the government were kind of concerned that they might surpass corporations over here. i am just wondering, they were talking, too, about maybe no borders and having people go back and forth with no borders. i was just wondering, later, nafta came out but nafta is going to be the equivalent kind of of the european common market? this is kind of but the question i'm trying to ask. host: we will let him respond. guest: in the wake of nafta, if we decided to double down on mutual is a should of economies and currencies and debt, you would have 19 nations in the
western hemisphere, including canada and the u.s. and mexico and various latin american countries and many caribbean countries, enjoyed one currency? maybe a euro version of the dollar? that has never happened here. it is something that would be a very difficult pill to swallow from a sovereignty perspective. there is not all that much in common between these countries other than their position on the globe and the hemisphere. certainly, the canadian and u.s. economies are an extra complete linked. if one is derailed, the other one will go down. mexico, in large part, which has been driving evaluations and it's economy is heavily dependent on exports to the united states and remittances from mexican laborers in the united states, i cannot imagine cold tule, economically, systemically -- culturally economically systemically 19 nations being brought together.
certainly, using a country that has u.s.-like privileges like puerto rico. if you imagine that being a state and union, and we have had weaker states here. we have had a budget crisis in california, illinois being very weak or you have to turn back on the state level in terms of pensioners like scott walker in wisconsin to say, no, you are taking this back and we cannot afford it anymore. or if you think back to the 1970's, the gerald ford in new york dropping dead. the analogy only goes so far. in a sense we are a country of 50 little country states but we are american. this is the fourth of july. you cannot imagine bringing say colombia or ecuador into a monetary union of every pseudo-currency. host: the president this week addressing the greek situation and try to downplay it in some cases. here is what he had to say and we will get your thoughts on. president obama, in layman's terms for the american people, this is not something we believe
will have a major shock to the system but obviously, it is very painful for the greek people. it can have a significant effect on growth rates in europe. if europe is not growing the way it needs to grow, that has an impact on us, that has an impact on brazil. those are major export markets and i can have a damaging effect on the entire world economy, so it is something we are monitoring something we spend a lot of time on, jack lew has been on the phone fairly consistently over the last several months. i have spoken to my european counterparts and encouraging them to find a path toward resolution, so it is something
we take seriously, but not something that i think should prompt overreactions. host: anything to take away from that? guest: the talk about the potential for a minsky moment where prosperity is the seed of its own demise and a seed of chaos. that certainly is what happened in the united states with wall street in 2008 and the lehman brothers. to a certain extent with grace it is interesting that mr. obama says in layman's terms followed by dangerous language to use. let's opposed the worst case center, greek atms start spitting out siddiqui, but bad -- to seeking -- it is a dip. suddenly everybody in the washing -- in the united states inc. they are playing hardball but then financial markets take a plunge and it is following
example. by the way, china's stock market has been tumbling just for bubble reasons for the last week or so. it is down in the significant bear market. it all of this stuff happens at once and you see mr. obama there looking nonplussed saying, we are watching it i have my treasury secretary on the phone with his european counterparts my point is the market forces the hand. you see u.s. investors suddenly say, greece and puerto rico don't have anything to do with me, why is the dow down 1000 points? white and my suddenly seen interest rates go up -- why am i subleasing interest rates go up? by mic mime visible bond portfolio -- why am i seeing my municipal bond portfolio? we have our lawyers on it but you may not see 100 cents on the dollar on your next statement. you may see $.80, there is a lot of confusion and questioning and people won't -- i think wall
street will force washington's hand much like it did in 2008-2009. host: mario from florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. my question is for mr. roben farzad. i am from puerto rico and every day i try to keep up with the news in puerto rico and i have seen that some politicians and puerto rico in the last few weeks or months are trying to blame the u.s. government for the puerto rican crisis because basically puerto rico is not a state, it is a u.s. territory. do you really think that puerto rico's status and the condition of puerto rico as a territory has something to do with the crisis? and another thing that i have noticed is that the barack obama
administration has no problems negotiating with cuba but when it is about puerto rican tragedy, they basically turned their backs and say, well, we would like to help but that is about it. thanks. guest: the issue is moral hazard. whether you are talking about u.s. and puerto rico or brussels and athens, this idea that used to be invoked before the greek bailout of 2008-2009 that wealthier economies and central banks and creditors cannot always be there to bailout weak players for either stupid decisions or recklessness. that is something the economy here that it is now nominally normalize that you get the sense that washington, money washington treasury, the federal reserve does not want to share its -- show its hand. certainly, they are talking about puerto rico behind the scene. $72 million is nothing to scoff at but they do not want to telegraph to these guys because they are not even a stay, they are a territory.
it is an unusual great area where they do benefit from certain social programs, there is a dollar and a significant effective remittances but they in no way want to telegraph that we are going to be on the hook to bailout the territory or give it an infusion or debt forgiveness when in fact, many u.s. states that enjoyed the protections under the constitution and full statehood are not getting that sort of signal from washington. host: are the leaders in puerto rico trying to put austerity as well as a we see in greece as government workers and pensions? guest: you are not seen anything like that yet because when you have international monetary fund come in like the government effectively say, we are fast approaching broke. there are stages of dying. denial, acceptance anger. they came out and said thomas, we cannot play this shell game anymore.
we are effectively broke, so you want to test the waters. what are you going to hear from washington? what are you going to from the imf? imf gets back and says, ok, we have a near term crisis and you will not make payments and that is when the imf says, we will give you money to make whole on your debt if you push through these various levels of austerity in the economy and the puerto rican government has not seen that yet. you see some bizarre efforts like shopowners opening up today and the sales taxes jumped up from like 7% to 12% when nobody is buying anything at the stores. anyway, there is a sense of unease and oppression and something is coming down the pipe, and the government there don't get the sense that it will be long mind because they will have to take a bailout and is trying to rearrange certain deck chairs. you get the full expectation that an imf will come in sooner or later. host: one more call.
mike, go ahead. we are almost out of time. caller: good morning. my question is, how binding is this referendum? is it possible for the government and the eu to ignore the results and go back to the drawing board and negotiate all over again if they find a favorable deal? thank you. guest: very good question and that is what has been telegraphed rum european players -- from european players. effectively, france came out and said using strongly wish that we will not cramp up another treaty of versailles on greece, bringing to mind this terrible imagery of world war i and world war ii and what led to that. there is even dissonance between the stronger economic players. they are saying, pay only so much attention to what happens in this poll because after all it is just a dramatic construct. in the and, there are behind the scenes suasion's and negotiations are to be an extension. you can get forbearance from the
imf and you will see markets snapped back and forward this week. you get the impression though that this vote with the terms so confusing is being chiefly used for clinical capital by the regime in athens. whether or not that is useful in bringing brussels to the table for a better deal remains a hugely opened question. host: our guest is the host of "full disclosure" on npr, roben farzad. guest: a show about business economics, finance, the meaning of life. we are on npr one, join us and 70 story ideas if you have anyone. host: what is npr one? guest: the podcast form which a lot of users are switching to tablets and podcast and listening in the car over bluetooth and it is their efforts to bring in all of these different stations and all these different shows on independent podcasts onto one channel on the smart phone i highly recommend a download.
host: thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: we take a look at the recent decision the supreme court made on redistrict team. david wasserman will be our guest and then we will be joined by richard norton smith to talk about president obama, the recent victories he has seen and leads to a larger discussion about his legacy that will take place at a: 30. and the former head of the national transportation safety board deborah horseman will join us and now the head of the national safety council. we will talk about the government and private sectors role in promoting safety. we will take a look at those issues as "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. we will see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by t