tv Washington Journal 08252019 CSPAN August 25, 2019 7:00am-10:02am EDT
social theory behind the policy proposal. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: welcome to "washington journal." , watchingdonald trump the democrats prepare for the next round of debates. should the democrats go for a safe choice or go for a more unoriginal candidate like the republicans did with president trump? what does elect ability mean for democrats? does it mean the candidate must be a moderate or a white male? question this morning for only, whatviewers does elect ability mean to you? if you are a democrat who lives
in the central or eastern time zone, we want to hear from you .t (202) 748-8000 if you vote and identify democrat in the mountain and pacific time zone, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. keep in mind we are always reading at social media, twitter @cspanwj and facebook, facebook.com/cspan. once again, democratic candidates is towards their next set of debates and the question .s electability that's a lot of a democratic voters are talking about and is being taken on exactly by the recent article in the atlantic. the article says this, "ask any new hampshire democrats which of any of the two dozen democrats the replyng for, usually isn't a name, but a list . a few candidates they like, perhaps, or maybe a couple they ruled out.
ask them the most important factor in their choice and the response is instantaneous, universal down to the words that they use, who can be trump. these are the electability voters and they are now driving the democratic primary. they're the biggest reason, ,erhaps even the only reason that former president joe biden .emains at the top of the field whether correct or not, rank-and-file democrats believe that biden has the best chance of defeating trump next fall and that, more than health care, climate change come immigration or any other single policy issue is what they care about above all. once again, the question today is about electability. we want to hear from democrats because this is a topic being talked about a lot among the democratic candidate. offact, senator cory booker
new jersey made his pitch in des moines, iowa earlier this week and electability was one of the things he talked about. here's what senator booker had to say. [video clip] we have common cause. it can't just be a safe bet to triangulate and beat donald trump. i'm running in the election because i know we can do more than that. host: once again, we're looking to hear from demo attic viewers only on the issue of electability. what does that mean to you? we want to hear from you this morning. , calling for ken carvell, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. what does electability in a democratic candidate mean to you? means addressing the
policies that are most important to americans, such as health care and the climate issues. to me, winning or being able to , whoever the given candidate is must be perceived as being able to be trump, that's just a given. but be on that the policies matter and health care is the most important. we must go to a single-payer health care system that eliminates insurance companies involved with entitlements. based on that standard, elizabeth warren and bernie sanders are the only candidates that meet the threshold. host: now, you are saying you are behind bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. now, are you concerned at all that they are too far to the left to pick up those independent voters that you would need to have a victory against president trump?
theyr: i don't think really are to the left, i think they are in the mainstream of where the public is. i think the media is setting these grandmothers of left and right in terms of what the issues are and it's not really what the sentiments of most people are. health care drives a lot of issues and it is becoming clearer, as bernie sanders and elizabeth warren speak more directly on the health care issue that the current construct of our health-care care system is grossly dysfunctional, number one, and number to the fact that so many issues with high price insurance deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses and high price drug rices shows corruption in the whole process. that is where we can continue to
work with the public going forward. these kind of left right mentions that we paint are missing where most people are. most people believe that health care is a right and everyone should be able to get good health care. and i think they think the way we try to pay for health care is fundscient, distributing between insurance instead of a single-payer system where you the effecty leverage of driving of it. hospitals and doctors will still be private and free enterprise businesses, as we should want, but the way we pay for it should be more rational. that is a single entity that has the leverage to effectively and efficiently fund our health care requirements. warren, fact, senator
the first caller mentioned her, has been making her own electability argument. here is what she had to say in the last round of democratic debates about the whole electability issue. [video clip] >> i know how to fight and i know how to win. i took on giant tanks and i beat them. i took on wall street and ceos and their lobbyists and their lawyers and i beat them. i took on a popular republican incumbents senator and i beat him. i remember when people said that barack obama couldn't get elected. i remember when people said donald trump get elected. but here is where we are. i get it. there is a lot at stake and people are scared. but we can't choose a candidate we don't believe in just because we are too scared to do anything else. and we can't ask other people to vote for a candidate we don't believe in. democrats win when we figure out
lines and talk to some of our callers. d, ormond beach, florida, good morning. caller: good morning. i really don't think electability will be an issue. i think that supply-side economics is starting to come home to roost and unfortunately but wish i was wrong unfortunately we won't be enjoying the soaring economy that we have been enjoying for the past couple of orders. and so i feel that democratic voters should vote for whoever they feel is going to champion them on issues like health care and global warming. in 2016 i feel that if bernie sanders had won the primary he would have stood a very good chance against donald trump.
electability, i don't think that donald trump is going to be thathallenging adversary .e was in 2016 i think the only thing holding him up is the economy and, unfortunately, i don't think that the economy is going to be that great in the next year. host: so, are you worried at all that independent voters may or may not be turned on or off by senator sanders? election, you need some independent voters as well as democrats and republicans. no, i'm not, and here's why. we have a whole generation of voters that were born after -- well, we have several generations of voters born after the cold war. and we have got generations now the people who vote that were
born after the reagan administration. democratic socialism can be defined objectively now. the older people they hear socialism and they think -- that's where people can't be free. the next generation here's socialism and as it was defined by the reagan administration and they think that's where people just live off the government all the time and have the government tell them what to do and all of these negative things that people say about socialism. i think that all of those preconceived notions have gone away. bernie sanders talks about health care and, let's face it, as far as health care goes, our system was broken way before barack obama was even thought of as a politician. his policies make sense, just like what the previous caller said.
that't feel at this point that label of democratic socialism is going to hurt bernie sanders with independent voters. let's talk to julianne, calling from san antonio, texas. julianne, good morning. julianne, are you there? caller: hello. host: go ahead, we can hear you. yes, i think that whoever gets president should not go into the deficit and they should get out of the deficit as and they should help especially the poor, not just the rich, because god said to. help the ones that need help like the middle class. not give a big stack of money to
the, to the rich. host: now, we are talking about forissue of electability the candidates. what does that mean for you when you look at the candidates running on the democratic side? well, i think that joe candidate, be a good he has always done right, been honest, always tries to help everybody. he's a good person. he knows all about everything there is. he knows about the politics and what should be done for the government and for the people. formero you think that vice president biden is the safe choice or the best choice out of the candidates on the democratic side? caller: i think you would be really good. former second lady jill
biden talked about electability as well when she was talking to new hampshire voters this week, saying that in fact in order to defeat president trump, democratic voters have to consider who is likely to win, even if that person isn't their first choice. here is what former second lady biden had to say. [video clip] >> yes, your candidate might be better on, i don't know, health care then joe is, but you got to look at who is going to win the election. maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say that i personally like so-and-so better, but your bottom line has to be that we have to be trump. they like another candidate .etter, but who's going to win if education is your main issue, joe is that person. once again, we are talking
to a democratic viewers this morning about what electability means to you. what you think about when you look at democratic candidates. electability or other issues? and once again, what does electability mean to you? we are opening up the regional lines. once again if you are in the eastern or central time zones and a democrat, call (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones and a democrat, we want to hear from .ou at (202) 748-8001 we are always reading on social media, @cspanwj and facebook.com/cspan on twitter and facebook. let's talk to mark. good morning. caller: hi, jesse. yeah. what i'm going to say might sound a little out-of-the-box year, but you know, i just don't see anybody here really exciting a base. that's a good
thing. i see president trump in his rallies, the base kind of going crazy at those rallies. you the truth,ll you know who i would like to see we could somehow get them into the race? michelle obama. might sound a little off the wall and out of the box, but i don't know, out of the current crop? i like jill biden but i think he's too old, jesse. staged in a debate, terror -- trump will tear him up. host: are you thinking about electability when you think about michelle obama and joe biden? what aches them the best ones question mark their positions or is it because you think they have the best chance to beat president trump? atler: well let's look president trump. he was basically a celebrity, wasn't he? i mean he's basically our
celebrity president. he had instant name recognition. michelle obama, instant rain that -- name recognition. andcan bring together return the sanity of the obama administration. compared to this administration, president obama was very steady. we all know. i don't know, i doubt she will run, but i tell you the truth, .f it's not her, it's joe biden tell you the truth come if the economy holds, i think joe biden loses. let's go to chloe, who is calling from el paso, texas. good morning. about: i'm going to talk the real elephant in the room, the media and republicans and the democrats who get on this
line and say i used to be a democrat and now i'm a republican, that's all made up, a myth, a freaking lie. look, there are more democrats in this country than there are republicans. you always see this talking point about that, that if the democrats go to far-left they are going to lose the election. you never hear the media or republicans say that if the country goes too far right we are going to lose the election. that's playing on your psyche. biden, the man in the moon, is going to be trump. they don't want the democratic base to be excited, therefore they want them to elect what they call a democratic light. that's what they call a conservative or moderate democrat. anybody that wins the democratic nomination will defeat this racist, cannot call him what he
is, he's a racist and everybody stupidt, this man it's that doesn't know how to run the country and everybody knows it. people are so stupid that they into put donald trump back the presidency knowing how he's screwing them in the economy, sitting there raising these tariffs on them and they can't afford to, too, the farmers can't afford to sell her products, if they don't understand the writing on the wall, then this country deserves to be in the situation it's in. which one of the democratic candidates are you supporting? host: for me first -- caller: for me personally it's a tossup between the senator from massachusetts and kamala harris. but honestly anybody but a republican. any time a republican gets into
the presidency they destroy this country by putting us into these deficits and a democrat has to bring us back. everybody knows that, they act like these republicans know what they are doing, but they just 2%e it tax break to the top of the country and stupid americans continue to let them do that. host: you have no concern about the democratic candidate having to appeal to independent voters? to speak'm just going to the democrats, i don't care what republicans do, they have ruined this country. ,hey are creating nativism they're openly -- many of them, not all of them, let me be honest, they are racist, they know it, the media will not call out what republicans are. most of them talk with doubletalk. what about shooting 4 -- caller: that's a bunch of crap
to, most of the time you lean one way or the other. many say this, there are more democrats in this country than republicans. this country is maybe 30% republican. this country is 70% democrat and if the democrats just come out going to win.re we could nominate the man in the moon and we would win. there is no such thing as we are too far left to win. rosanne,'s go to calling from san diego, california. good morning. i think that liberal voters need to wise up real quick and i do not want to see a repeat of the 2016 election. this is not the time for social democratic ideals. it's not the time for bernie sanders or any other candidate
theyt on the stage and say will raise taxes because that's going to scare people. thegot to think about electoral college vote, not the person you like the best. we've got to make sure that the people that didn't vote last time because they hated hillary clinton or whatever or they voted third party because they couldn't vote for a woman, clinton, they cannot do that this time. they have got to go vote for whoever is the blue candidate and the independent. with you, the independent voters are the most important voters, not the democrats. you've got to appeal to the independent voters in order to win the electoral college. host: ok, so here's the opposite argument -- argument. if you pick up a candidate who appeals to independent voters will you get the democratic base excited enough to show up and vote?
host: that's it -- caller: that's a scary thing. you have had three bernie people on already and it's only been 15 minutes. there is no hillary clinton to hate this time, so if they are not going to vote for the moderate, whoever it is, a moderate or right or left, they will put us back in the same position they did in 2016, we're going to lose, trump will be president a second time and he will ruin the supreme court. liberals got to rise up real quick, real quick. let's talk to patrick, calling from mckees rocks, pennsylvania. patrick, good morning.
caller: i agree with your first call and hundred percent. joe biden is maybe to moderate to be elected. ishink that bernie sanders actually the leading candidate, despite what most of the media is trying to push. seems like it is trying to push joe biden on to the voters. just as in the last election, bernie sanders has the popular majority lead. finally, i would like to say that i would like to see bernie sanders and elizabeth warren on the same ticket in either order. you concern all about whether a sanders wore an independent candidacy would appeal to voters? as far as that is
concerned, bernie sanders and elizabeth warren already excite the independent base, i don't even see that as an issue. the issue that i see is that, as he'sd, biden came out late not an exciting candidate. joe biden, don't it be wrong, being from pennsylvania, but think couldrs, i win hands down over donald trump. centerhe pew research had a story that i want to bring to you about how democratic voters are feeling right now. with more than five months to go before the first votes are cast in the 2020 presidential election, the majority of voters who expressed a preference for , 623%, saycandidates
essentially you have to vote for him because he's electable? most democrats far and wide across the country before the and november election that resulted in the current presidency, very few, nobody, everybody thought that hillary had it in the bag, no one thought that trump was going to win. 15 years or so ago, nobody thought that president obama had a chance. nobody thought a black man could the -- could be elected in our lifetimes. fairly elected by the electoral college, but she received 3 million more votes. whoever you believe strongly in his who could be elected. there is so, so much interest in this election. i have gone to a lot of the events and i have seen most of the candidates and it's just tons of people coming to the events and people are really excited. very few have only one person, many have a top three or top five list.
i hear people who like bernie. most of the people i know who voted for him are looking to other candidates. there are many good people. i know people who like and respect joe biden. he was your speaking yesterday. i went to a different event yesterday. whoever you believe in, work hard for them and get the vote out, that's how we won at the midterms and it is how we will win. it's not trying to figure out the safest person. when that attitude is taken it results in a lot of poor choices. host: do you worry that you could do the same thing as republicans with president trump? that you might end up with a candidate that doesn't appeal across the board? you mean if people stress electability question mark or the opposite? host: the opposite. thank you.h,
i think that with so many good candidates, we have a lot of great candidates. i myself right now if i were to vote today would be voting for p june -- pg -- pete buttigieg. i went to an event yesterday in the middle of nowhere that was 400 and 80 people in a backyard. i talked to a lot of people and they had top three. they also had people they didn't like. but these were people that were definitely on his page and people just got really excited. we have so many great qualified people. there are so many, there's no way they will go anywhere. but i have faith in the system this time that people are taking it really seriously, it's such a big field that it isn't just the binary choice that it was a few years ago. i think a primary risk is good to flesh that all-out. there are a lot of reasons we got to trump right now and it's not just any one thing, but we
have such a healthy field now of excellent candidates that it bodes well, so i just encourage people to get involved, especially in places like new hampshire where we get to see and hear everybody. i see the poll results of biden in the lead, clearly based on name recognition. and then people talk about is real bernie stronghold. i'm about 50 minutes from the vermont border. most of the people i know who supported bernie are looking to warn this year primarily. but essentially when people say that when -- i do here the people that want a change, they kind of want a generational and that is ideas reflected in the choice of several candidates, not just one. let's talk to kim calling from california. thank you to all the
democratic callers who are filling my heart with joy for being so informed. candidates atfew the very beginning. harris, mayor pete. i like michael bennet. i'm voting blue. i'm not crazy to the left. i'm more middle. blue. it is, i'm voting electability is hugely important. man out ofget this office. i would vote for pinocchio over the sky. it's just -- the situation we're in, it requires everybody to swallow hard if it isn't your candidate. swallow hard and let's get him out of there. i'm calling from california, middle of the state. i am surrounded to the north and on all sides with people were not necessarily going to vote against trump. but i am hoping that we all get together and do what is best for
the country. host: if you choose only by who you think can be trump, don't you not get the best candidate that way? caller: what i can of think every candidate up there -- lenny rephrase that, the candidates that are the most intelligent and have the best crowds on these issues are the best candidates to take care of the country. in my heart of hearts i don't know if i could handle another four years emotionally, spiritually, or anything else of trump. once again, we are talking to our democratic viewers this morning, what does elect ability mean is you try to decide who to support in the democratic presidential run? once again, if you are a
democrat and are in the eastern or central time zones, we want to hear from you. if you vote democrat and you live in the mountain or pacific time zones, and we want to hear from you, (202) 748-8001. we are always reading on social media and twitter, @cspanwj comment facebook, facebook.com/cspan. bonnie, west palm beach, florida. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. the woman a call before, rosa, she was wonderful, i loved everything she said. as far as it goes for electability, we need someone who speaks well, is strong, confident, and warren is definitely that person. she needs to tone back on the college. you can't give free college. so many people have paid. it's the way it is.
you have to pay your dues. maybe do something with the interest rates. pete buttigieg would be great for a vice president. and tulsa gabbard for the secretary. secretary of? caller: state. host: so you are behind senator warren right now. if she does not get the nomination, will you still be voting democrat question mark or will you look for a third-party candidate similar to senator warren? i will definitely vote democrat because meet someone who is for the people. not the rich. mind paying more taxes, i want everybody to be happy and healthy and to have a good life. i'll think that some people should -- they have no houses
and many have houses. it's a strong. isn't one house enough? there are some people who don't even have a home. it's heartbreaking. really. it's disgusting to think that americans allow people to sleep on the streets. terrible. children don't have shoes and food. what kind of people are we? that's really the issue that we need to address for this election. who are we as americans? let's talk to nancy, calling from redondo beach. thank you so much. thank you for c-span. electability is number one. i absolutely agree with several of the callers. the gal before me from florida i agree with connecticut was ken,
a fellow californian. i just pretty much every point, every point she made i agree with. i'm not real happy with the premise of -- well, if your candidate, you know, isn't in their, you look somewhere else. absolutely not. absolutely not. i want a democrat. who am i excited about? i'm excited about a lot of them, ok? i'm excited about elizabeth warren. i'm excited about mayor pete. we are just sort of learning how to say his name. kamala harris. i'm fine with biden. -- we't have the luxury need to get excited. we don't have the luxury of getting excited. we don't have that luxury anymore. we need to vote for the democrats and i have made that
commitment. i'm fine with bernie, but if it's not bernie, i do know some bernie people who feel that if it's not bernie, they are not going to vote. -- it'sthat's not a big not as big of a deal as it has been in the past. i think a lot of those folks -- i hope a lot of those folks are starting to realize that if it's not bernie, they still need to vote for the democrat. are you worried that if you pick the most electable candidate the candidate will be the person to get in the face of the democratic party and get them excited to come out and i have heard you ask that before and the answer is no. there is a difference between being excited about voting and then voting because you know it's the right thing to do. i don't you have to be excited about the candidate to get up and go out and vote.
right now we need to vote democrat so that we can get out of the mess we're in right now and i don't think it is going to ambient people. i think that even the independence that are kind of on i think that unless they are really a republican and saying they're democrat, i think that they will go ahead and go with the democratic candidate, who ever it is. comesthe other issue that up with electability, from "the baltimore sun" editorial board, who pointed this out earlier , here's a bit of what they wrote --
. have 200 and 50 cousins the only good candidate we are going to vote for is bernie sanders when he comes up. , our familyin their is probably going to switch them go to donald trump. i understand everyone thinks the trump is racist. but he just speaks whatever's on his mind and that's a people like about him. he's not afraid to hold back. bernie sanders, if he gets in there, my family will probably vote for him. intelligent, and i think he's the only one that would turn a republican to vote for him. host: the me see if i understand this, if the democrats don't choose sanders, you would rather vote for donald trump than any of the other democratic candidates? that's true. sanders, he speaks good, he has
feels aing on and he good person my family would vote for. i have got a big family. we are third-generation, i bet 200 and 50 cousins that would turn around and vote. when we get together we have family reunions. say theget together we only one we would vote for his sanders. if not we will turn around and vote for donald trump. let's go to lisa, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. i love listening to my fellow democrats. i voted for obama. i don't know why people have ruled out joe biden. joe biden has all the access and knowledge that obama had.
the aca was instrumental, he's connected to congress and if we don't have control over the congress, all of these wishlist, which i think are great with bernie and elizabeth warren, but i don't think with congress any of that is going to go and they will have to moderate all of that. bennett if buttigieg possible. i think they make the ticket electable. i also like tulsi gabbard as secretary of state or vp. i think of the other issues right now are all extremely focused and that is going to turn off lots of parts of the country and i'm deeply concerned because liberal youth and people focus decision, when they say they won't vote for a democrat against trump, it's just flabbergasted to me. they don't even show up for the polls.
we lost the last election because of that exact reason. but i truly believe that biden has the key access to improve the health care programs and move us towards single-payer. much more logically. does electable mean best question mark to those two things mean the same thing? does electable mean best candidate? caller: buttigieg and bennett, because of their connection to congress -- bennett and biden in particular, and their connections to the different parts of the country. some say that i'm a far, far left liberal democrat. i think these folks speak common sense to the questions and problems that we have. again, international affairs or big. i was -- i love elizabeth warren, i love kamala harris. but i don't hear them speaking -- even bernie, but i see them as one track focuses.
i see elizabeth warren as a director of consumer affairs, kamala harris, journey general. bernie involved in the health care updates. --t: let's go to jew and let's go to joann. caller: good morning, thank you for letting us have our opinions as far as electability. i'm looking for someone better than the average person in the room. someone who knows what they're talking about. someone who doesn't have to promise everything but just be practical. just fix the budget and, if you're going to give tax cuts, give them to the middle class. not the 1%. states health care make it more affordable for people. we need to keep a watch out for gerrymandering. we need paper ballots.
as far as the candidates go, i haven't picked when yet, but biden is ok. i mean he makes his little gaffes and stuff like that, but it's not a big deal. host: i will ask you the same question i was trying to ask her previous caller. does the candidate who is electable, is that the same as saying that kennedy is the best for the democrats? well, we do need a candidate that selectable. they have to be electable. also, theeally need, democrats need to stop, you know, they need to, they need to argue about the issues. not little insignificant stuff that doesn't really matter. me.urns me off, personally, we had enough of that from our president right now.
want to hear about the issues and we want some debate about different policies and different views on what they are going to do. we don't need a bunch of promises. socialism, look it up in the dictionary. any organization run by the government. could be to fire department, police department. anything like that. it's an overblown talking point on the republican side. he's ok, i haven't picked anyone. warren is ok. i like buttigieg, he's ok. biden is ok. harris, i thought she was ok at first, but i thought she kind of overstepped her boundaries on the debate. that was my personal opinion.
i don't need someone it's going to bite at the ankles. we need real talk from these candidates on what they are going to do for us, how they are going to do it, where they stand on the issues and debate on that. let's go back to our social media followers one more time in this hour to see what they have to say about electability. here is one tweet that says -- host: let's see what we can talk
to a few more callers before we moved to the next topic on the show. larry's calling from smear, tennessee. good morning. -- smyrna, tennessee. caller: good morning. in 2016 i wrote down a vote for bernie sanders. i felt like sanders, his wave has kind of past, it's come and go, i think now it's more of a ,ar and buttigieg -- warren buttigieg, harris, more of a younger crowd thing. i think the young generation is really going to take this over. i'm actually voting for williamson. er, but ie's like a 1% feel like she gives me the best -- she speaks well to my issues and what i like. if she's not elected, i would probably go with pete buttigieg. .e would be a strong candidate if anything, he could be a vice
president at best. for secretary of state, something like that. thank you for taking my call. host: larry, before you go, do you tip -- intend to support the candidate no matter who they are or if they don't choose one of the ones you mentioned, you plan to do something else with your vote? on it we lost larry. let's talk to steve, calling from ocean shores, washington. steve, good morning. go ahead. caller: you there? host: good morning, go ahead. caller: i think electability means policy gabbard. people like ron paul like are on the right. joe rogan likes her. many, many, many democrats like her. she was the most googled after the last to bring debates. to not dnc is trying
allow her to go on stage, saying polls thatmake four were anointed by the dnc. she has actually made 23 polls. she's the only candidate who talks about getting out of the wasteful regime change roles. she would really make a great president. she needs to be taken serious and keep debating. host: so steve, when you talked about electability, do you think that tulsi gabbard has enough name recognition and will excite the base form -- for the democratic party and independent voters as well? caller: yes. she has already got the ear of ron paul, who supports her. and he's a libertarian. and joe rogan.
and like i said, after her performances at the last to bring debates, her name was the number one name googled by people. .hey love this and she is a veteran. she's a veteran right now on to her. she is very electable. ruby, calling to from las vegas, nevada. you for taking the call, i'm going to be as quick as i possibly can. we have trump, everybody knows we have trump. everybody says he's a racist. if trump is a racist, he's going to look at biden on the stage and he's going to say -- so are you. trump is going to look at bernie and say -- so are you. trump is going to look at warren and say -- so are you. he's going to look at whatever his name, the mayor questioner he will say so are you.
it doesn't mean they are, just means that he would have enough information on them as much as they have on him to call each other a racist. therefore they are just totally unelectable on that basis alone. as far as going against trump. now we have kamala harris, totally the one that should be running for president. , harris has already proven herself. she has been elected as district attorney. that is a progressive going through attorney general. that's a progressive means. bernie sanders is not a progressive. if you can't take medicare from 1990 and make something happen for 20 years, you're not progressive. --lo question mark host: hello?
host: it we lost ruby. liz, mount laurel, new jersey. good morning. caller: i think that electability is something to consider but a camper the only thing when we pick a candidate as democrats. it's important because we should have had a president gore. enjoying aave been president clinton, but the voted them outge and the republicans in. because of the tightness of our partisanship i think that's why that occurred, and it rarely occurred in the past. but in the last 20 it's happened twice. i think of what will happen is we should be able to have a
clear, decisive victory in 2020 if the democratic vote gets out. my fear is that it doesn't get .ut certain forces that didn't get it out in 2016 carried the popular vote. the next few elections, byublicans will lose them margins like how we lost in 2000 and 2016. i don't think the republican party will take it well. democrats had a put up with it, but the republicans are apt to claim that it was rigged or thething when they lose electoral college but when the popular vote. let's talk to our, calling ton, missouri.
caller: good morning, good morning. hello, hello, hello? host: good morning, we can hear you, go ahead. caller: oh, ok. i think that electability will be a given to any democrat candidate who comes up against trump. trump is hated by many people for what he's done and said and how he conducts himself. but i think what should be on is the electoral college. it's an archaic and sit to should and should be eliminated. in the last election we won the popular vote and we lost the election because of the electoral college. let's talk to thomas, calling from honolulu, hawaii. thomas, good morning.
host: number one, i appreciate your patience that it takes it are your job. i'm a bernie supporter, followed by andrew yang and elizabeth moran in that order. as one to say that as long as we are stuck with two year-long presidential campaigns, much longer than any other country, and unnecessary in my opinion, we should make the most of it. we should have vigorous, substantive debates, not based on sound bites or what the political entertainment media is telling us, but do our homework, compare the platforms and make the decision on that basis and take advantage of these two years that we have to put up with this and make the most of it. beyond that? oure come together behind eventual nominee we need to also not just get trump out of their, we need to try to get the u.s.
senate turned democrat. work in other states other than your own. there are ways to do that. organizations like indivisible or swing left. go online, look them up. get involved with them. put some of your time and effort into other states where they need more help to get people elected. host: let's go to toby. caller: i wanted to push back on the idea that bernie sanders is unelectable. i think bernie sanders is more electable than joe biden. if you would make the democratic base more enthusiastic, they would turn out as he speaks to the issues they care about most where joe biden has that similar
issue to clinton in 2016, where he's just proposing half measures and incremental change when the democratic base and the american people are ready for real change. all right, so thank you to all of callers called in for this section. coming up we talked about the future of the u.s. involvement in the 18 year war in afghanistan with brookings. later on we will talk about the state of policing in america with eugene o'donnell. but first, this week on "newsmakers," we interview the president of a key super pac. he is stephen law, once chief of staff to mitch mcconnell. he talked about the colorado senate race in which john hickenlooper suddenly jumped into it and about the senate in maine, where susan collins is seeking reelection.
>> hickenlooper is not a bad thing for republicans. of the see any sign democrats in that primary who ran aside for a guy for president. i think it complicates their primary. even if he emerges as the primary, hickenlooper has not been tested by an important republican. jonesas like doug boasting about beating doug moore -- roy moore. i think he's going to turn in a good race. hickenlooper being in doesn't change the dynamic. it may make it more competitive for us.
>> what do you think of the maine race. >> susan collins reminds me of joe manchin. she represents a state that has shifted in terms of its partisan moorings. she is well-known. it's a small state like west virginia. it is sensitive to the importance of the role of the federal government. those kinds of officeholders are very difficult to defeat. we had this experience with joe manchin. spend tv trying to tarnish a reputation. it bounces off the body armor. i think susan collins is that kind of colder. they know what she has done in the state.
athink democrats will mount serious effort. day, i think the she's got a durable image that will ensure she gets reelected. you can see the entire interview with stephen law today at 10:00 on c-span. you can hear us on c-span radio and watch online at www.c-span.org. we are back with michael o'hanlon, the program director at the brookings institution. we will talk about the afghan troopd possible u.s. withdrawal. bureaulet's go to the chief. can you hear me this morning? guest: absolutely. good morning. host: what is the current state of u.s. troops in afghanistan right now?
there are approximately 14,000 american troops in afghanistan. then it lower number has for the past few years. that is pretty stable right now. the current deal, version of the proposed deal would reduce that number by about 5000 in the coming months. it would reduce the rest over the next year and have to be completed by next year. forcesre the afghan capable of defending their country right now? guest: the afghan government says they are. the afghan defense leaders say they are. would need,y they
even if they don't need foreign troops backing them up as they have until now, they need foreign funds and foreign equipment. one of the most important things the american forces have done is to provide combat air support for ground forces. afghanistan does have an air force. it is relatively young and has relatively few aircraft. that's been a big point. the troops are going to be leaving over time. they hope funding will continue. they hope they get access to american support in other ways. the afghanrote that president was to hold presidential elections.
hear talks are at a crucial stage. what are you hearing on the ground there? it's hard to know on the ground here in afghanistan with actually happening. talksave a pause in the on friday, they went back on saturday. there were rumors that there was going to be an agreement on some interim government in afghanistan. both sides of the negotiation shot that rumor down. we think they are still on track for negotiations that would leave the future political arrangements here. leave that to future talks between afghan officials and the taliban. what we think from the most recent reports by u.s. officials is that the two sides are nearing completion of the deal
that would allow the u.s. to tohdraw several thousand, up 5000 troops in coming months. the timeline we don't know about yet, the rest of the troops would be in charge. to announcegree their affiliations with al qaeda. it they would not allow that group to offer -- occupy afghan territory. one is whether there would be a permanent cease-fire agreed to by the taliban. the other is they would agree to meet with afghan officials, specifically in future talks. up until now, they have refused to meet with those officials. they have been willing to meet with a variety of afghans. those are the two final sticking points.
we don't know it's going to happen with that. thank you so much for your great reporting. i wanted to ask you a question that is based on a different understanding of where the talks are on my part. maybe there is enough wiggle disagree.we don't in my conversations with american officials of the government, i have gotten the forces goinge 9000 down to almost zero is entirely up in the air. there is nothing that should be even ifed preordained, this first deal is agreed to. unlessd be contingent the president decides otherwise deal actual afghan taliban , which may never happen frankly. if the afghan government and the taliban were come to an agreement that involves asking
the americans to stay with some modest forces, we could reconsider at that point. there is nothing that will be preprogrammed about that second round. i want to make sure that you didn't have a fundamentally different impression. this is based on my conversations with officials in washington. we are getting information from various places. >> i think you are right. we have more or less agreed on that. ongoings been discussions even as we speak would leave,they but how. the americans and afghans have always wanted that.
the americans of said more strongly recently that the total withdrawal has to be condition based. it's based on conditions, the taliban have to follow through on whatever they have agreed to. if you agree to take out all the immediately, there is nothing left to bargain with. discussionseen about withdrawing all the troops. you are right. we don't know how close they are to any of this. we do think they are much closer on the preliminary step of , the first chunk of withdrawal of the 5000. the second issue is a real bone of contention in these final talks. andher any counterterrorist
intelligence operations would be left in afghanistan. the taliban have been very opposed to that. i think these are ongoing. that's a complicating factor in the issue you just raised. i'm not sure if we can answer all of that with certainty. wrote an also interesting piece in the last few weeks where you said there is fear of an isis renewal. this is what you wrote. say islamic state forces continue to terrorize villages under their control, recruiting boys and banning girls from school. they have continued to fight each other. they also fear some television staters will join islamic
forces if a deal is made. is isis on a renewal in afghanistan? slowly building up over the past several years. their forces have gone from less than a thousand two closer to 4000 or more. placesve two different they operate. one is in the far eastern world providence near pakistan -- nce air pakistan. they are getting heavy push back. they are quite circumscribed. they are not defeated. area wherell border they first started out near
pakistan, they are still active according to local officials. they are able not to move as far as they want or do as much as they want. they are able to have an influence and control in certain districts. ofe more concerning to a lot afghans is separate activity by the islamic state affiliate in afghanistan, that's the horrendous urban suicide bombings which they've been citiesg out in other y.th regularit there was a terrell bombing a couple of weeks ago at a large wedding. when i say large, the average wedding here is well over 1000 people. sometimes they have multiple weddings in the same hotel. this is a very popular family activity, many women and
children are at these events. claimed i isis blew himself up in the middle of the wedding hall. isis blew himself up in the middle of a wedding hall. this was unprecedented. they bomb military installations, mosques. they are an extremist sunni group. attacks isse tax -- in an ethnic minority area. savage, the most pointed attack on pure civilian family events in a public place. that's been very shocking to people here.
unlike with happening in the far afghan world where both and u.s. forces have been quite successful at being them back, these bombings in the capital keep happening. that's what really terrifies people here. host: we would like to thank pamela constable from the washington post for being with us this morning. thank you so much for talking to us. michael, there's a lot of information going on there. we are 18 years into afghanistan. what is the success so far? guest: it's limited. is an amazing reporter who is spent many years there. the capital city and the major cities are in government and spirit i'm sure she's taken a lot of security precautions. things are worse than they were
10 years ago. the level of violence is worse than it was 10 years ago. it is much better than life was under the taliban rule in the previous two decades. certain base quality-of-life that people have seen improved. seriousthe midst of climate -- a serious climate of violence. taliban have some limited military momentum. the united states has an uncertain commitment to the future. president obama and president trump are not seen as very similar human beings. on the issue of afghanistan, they are surprisingly similar. they say they will probably get forces out next year.
there is no option that deals with isis without a limited presence. that's the overall situation we're in. it's better than it was 20 years ago. you see a developing city, you know to the barricades you saw in baghdad. there is a quality-of-life it is better, there is a lot of violence. the idea of building a democratic afghan country, there is no confidence that we are on a path that that will be sustainable. host: do you see a realistic the american troops, a majority of american troops? given the situation on the ground? i'm glad u.s..
pamela pointed out we have 14,000 troops there now. much, one cover so point she did not have time to make was that's an increase over the last two years. we had been at around 9500 at the end of obama's presidency. the plan we are now hearing coming out of these talks of the taliban for the u.s. government would bring us back to about where obama been. it's the same ballpark. this is still way below the pe,000 that we pete at -- aked at 10 years ago. that's always in the realm of reasonable and google. we've already been there. -- doable.
we've already been there. some articles based on what we have gleaned from the negotiations, some have suggested we are very close to a deal to pull out the remaining 8500 troops to would be there after the first cut. i don't think that's true. i think that second round of cuts may or may not happen. it has not been agreed to. contentious on the peace talks and president trump's own preferences, which are up and down on this issue. he has not been clear about what he would do next year in the absence of a deal with the government and the taliban. host: two u.s. service members of the and killed the last few days.
is what18 years, this the cost has been in terms of lives and military support. killed,had 1900 people 20,000 injured. $176 billion, $500 billion. is it time to leave afghanistan? guest: no. isis and al qaeda are still threats. pamela describe the horrible scene that happened last week. happenat could elsewhere. we saw what isis did when they had a base in iraq and syria. they sent refugees into europe. we have to recognize there is still a threat to the united states from the kinds of groups it could be based in afghanistan and do have small footholds
already in the remote areas. planese not getting on pound for the west. they could if they get a strong enough foothold. we have to find the most economical way to do counterterrorism in south asia. that requires some help from the afghan government. you can have a presence if their government falls. there is minimal support for the afghan government. hopefully it will just be money and advisers. see a better option when you look at the full range of our interests. we threw up our hands, we been there too long, that's an appealing argument emotionally. think about what it means for isis and al qaeda and their foothold in the world. of what's being negotiated right now seems reasonable.
rakee taliban agree to ties with extremists and reduce violence, that's the initial thing. then we are down to about 8500 u.s. troops. we will see if they can find out a way to share power. i doubt it will work. while that process continues, we need to keep several thousand u.s. forces there. host: let's let our viewers join in on the conversation. if you are a republican, (202) 1.8-800 democrats, (202) 748-8000. , (202) 748-8002. we will open up a special line for afghan war veterans. we want to hear what you think should be done.
we want to hear about your experience. if you are and afghanistan war veterans, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media. michael, one more question for you. centre lindsey graham wants to create a backstop in afghanistan. explain what a backstop is and how that would work. guest: i'm not familiar with his latest quote, generally he is felt we need some kind of way to prevent extremists and building up a presence in south asia. thecan think of international terrorist movement as encompassing the broader world and expanding to asia and into northern africa. someregion requires
military capabilities and intelligence capabilities. not huge numbers, a few thousand people here or there. it's a number that we can sustain. it's not cost free. it still risks casualties. majorot enough to prevent attacks on the united states. a backstop in my mind means having the eastern pillar of that framework. we have capabilities in iraq and syria, some limited presence in djibouti. and navalher marine assets in the persian gulf. we can listen and take action. we can support friendly governments. the afghanistan presence is the eastern part of the backstop for the overall capability. host: let's go to the phone lines.
john is calling from laura on the independent line. florida on the independent line. wanted to ask you if you could give us some perspective. we have been a superpower since world war ii. we managed the same thing in germany and japan with -- japan. i don't know what to call the japanese. we did not see terrorist action by the nazis. we are still in germany and japan. we are still in korea. religious zealot difference as far as our soldiers being killed? they are not being killed in
korea or germany. isn't the main issue have to stand? -- pakistan? we can't root out where they are coming from. good: thank you for your question. afghanistan, you notice the difference. these are much more cohesive societies, not always for the good in terms of what they did in the 1930's and 40's. they are much more strongly built societies. afghanistan is largely tribal. whatever cohesion there was was destroyed by the soviet union. we owe the afghans a debt of gratitude. they helped us defeat the soviets in the cold war. toy forced it ultimately
pull out. that is why gorbachev came to power. people sometimes forget. we are just doing afghanistan a favor by being there. we are trying to help them certainly. we also see a week country with these tribal rivalries because the soviets came in and whatoyed from the outside limited amount of cohesion was there in the 1970's. you are right about pakistan. pakistan does enable the leadership into major cities. pakistanis helped create the taliban. they sought ks in afghanistan. they wanted some degree of control. left, 1990's when we had the pakistanis wanted some way to protect themselves.
they helped this group come together and strengthen what we see now. they have never quite forgiven departure, that we would help stabilize thing. -- things. i think we have to try and understand why they have done it. we need to change their opinion for the future. that is the history of the pakistani role in the taliban. why should american viewers care about afghanistan at this point? we are 18 years into it. true, they still developed the 9/11 attacks. they operated from other countries as well. that is where osama bin laden was located. they could do it again. they can do something similar
again. isis has a huge interest in urban attacks. they learn from each other. keep them mostly of the country and keep them those.veloping three or four years ago when isis was on the rise, they were getting a lot of followers here. have history with them. it was exciting to people. people were already angry and people were drawn to them. there are still a lot of them left. we don't want them to rekindle and restore their momentum. they can use that to recruit. they can plan operations against the west. host: kenny is calling from virginia. he is an afghanistan war veteran. good morning. i am an afghanistan and
iraq war veteran. afghanistan, we have to realize the taliban was the government. the taliban attacked the world with a destroyed the trade centers. they are a war criminal. they destroyed temples of different religions. basically, they corrupt the people. when i talked to the citizens of afghanistan trying to run a business, the taliban and would come in and make threats and take people. isis would do it. other local extremists would threaten the women. the small towns are tribal. it's all being done by pakistan. the thing is, pakistan is
constantly feeding munitions into afghanistan. it's a known fact. there is no confusion there. don't want to say it. that taliban is evil. bastards.evil there you want to hope are a few in the movement who have gotten tired of the violence, that they would be willing to look inside their hearts and change their approach. they are mostly very violent people. there are many groups inside the taliban who are especially brutal and who i doubt would at a fundamental level break from
isis fundamentally. they may join isis if there is a peace deal. people ona lot of bad the other side, a lot of corruption in the government, and effectiveness in the security forces. it's not usually with the same kind of ruthless retaliate. they are achieving the same effect, polarizing the company in weakening the government. we have to work with the afghan president to clean up his own government. there is a long way to go. many of the taliban are fundamentally violent in their approach. it's all they know. it's all they have is a tool. there is nothing redeeming about it. the: with talk about negotiation with the taliban, what would a troop withdrawal from afghanistan look like?
acting army secretary said they haven't received any direction to do anything at this point. mccarthy says there have been no directives to curtail troop deployment. what would a withdrawal look like? to where would go back we were in the later obama years. that was about 9500 troops. once being discussed now is going to 8500. president obama inherited about 30,000 troops in afghanistan from the bush administration. he took that up to 100,000. he did that early on. by the end of the second term, we were below 10,000 troops. him added 5000.
this is all in the realm of the doable. level, youat that keep a couple of big airbases nearly capital city. maybe one or two others. you have somewhere in the range of three or four major airbases where we have intelligence capabilities and launching special force operations. somebody is training the afghans. our nato troops do some of that. we have some americans in the field. either at headquarters in the out the pointibly of operation. it's the o's latter two groups that would be scaled back first. the latter two groups that would be scaled back first.
some of the smaller airbases would be closed. the extent of your day-to-day operation training commando raids in the field would go down. we would say that for the most extreme threats. doingghans are already the fighting. host: let's go to george who is calling from new york on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. points, my first point, there is a good reason the region is the graveyard of empires. been an ethnic inflection point between china, india, and pakistan. strongerentities are
than national identity. they have not been able to sustain a national one. thinkingst mistake was we could do it so many failed to do. we are truly in the briar patch. lostar in afghanistan was 17 years ago when george w. bush invaded iraq. could get the people who sponsored 9/11, nothing really happened. we are still there being the strongest military in the world. victory is nowhere in sight. what is the matter with finally admitting that we have lost?
this would not be the first time we've seen no way forward. it is not safe for an american downtowno drive from to the airport. they always go by helicopter. what does that tell you? guest: i don't agree that we have lost. we have not had major terrorist attacks from afghanistan in 18 years. minimal metric of whether we been successful not. i agree we've been unsuccessful cohesive state that can stand on its own two feet. the reason the united states is there to protect ourselves. we have maintained enough stability to keep terrorists on their heels. they have not used broader south asia as a base. in terms of the graveyard of
empires, i appreciate the historical point. russia and britain in previous centuries went into that country to take land, to conquer, to control. as hostile foreign invaders. the international presence in afghanistan has been at the invitation of the government. poured billions of dollars into afghanistan to try to help them rather than extract or occupy or control. you are still correct that we have not managed to convince the population that they want us there. the taliban has been very anti-american. i think you are right to draw from history. the nature of the international presence is radically different. we are still there at the invitation of the afghan government, which has wanted us there desperately through the 18
years since we overthrew the taliban. host: president trump spoke about afghanistan. i want to bring that into this. this is president trump on tuesday referring to the u.s. presidents -- presence in afghanistan. >> it's ridiculous. we have taken it down a notch. we are at 13,000 people right now. nato has some troops there. we are having good discussions. we will see what happens. it's 18 years. we are not really fighting. it we are more of a police force over there. it's been so many years. we are not supposed to be a police force. , this is notd using nuclear, we could win that war in a week if we wanted to
fight it. i'm not looking to kill 10 million people. what would have to happen. i'm not looking to do that. it's a war that has been going on for almost 19 years. frankly, it's ridiculous. said, it's ang dangerous place and we have to keep an eye on it. atould like to look alternatives, one of the alternatives is going on right now. i don't know whether or not it's going to be acceptable to me. we are talking. we have good talks going. this is more than other presidents of done. we are bringing some of the troops back. host: react to what he said there. guest: i support the essence of what he said because even though i don't support his overall
approach to diplomacy, he is capturing the attention. a complete the part you're is not consistent with our safety. home. -- safety here at home. you could hear the contradiction in his own statement. support the way he just spoke about the situation. it captures the real dilemma. it's fine to talk about wanting to get out, as long as you don't do it before it's smart. susan is calling from california on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. strategic ando be all that other stuff. i'm sorry -- tired of our men going in and losing their lives
in being shot at. why do we have other countries go in there and help us? i'm tired of fighting everybody else's battles. i was around during vietnam. i've seen the same thing. signs, iout there with was raising children at the time. i still went to a lot of funerals. i'm tired of this ec stuff. just bomb the whatever's out of them. tragic when we lose americans. to 20 in the15 last three years in afghanistan. i would happily see that number go to zero as would you. we lost 3000 people on 9/11. it's not about finding complete safety and complete lack of
risk. all the options we have before us have risk. the people i know who go to afghanistan, i've been there many times, the people who deploy their understand the risks and the stakes. they are not happy about the appointments and they are not equally in agreement with the role. they want to protect the united states. that goal has largely been accomplished. i don't know how we continue to ensure it in the future without some limited presence. the numbers are far less than they were in afghanistan. i'm not saying any casualty is acceptable. when you balance the different risks, i don't see a better way forward then keeping a few troops in afghanistan for a while. host: greg is calling from
denver on the democratic line. good morning. caller: a couple of different parts to my comment, we have a president who is not up-to-date on american history or global history. we have a president who doesn't tell the truth to us. i do know how we can go forward with foreign policy we do have a president who lies to us 15 times a day. about defeating the nazis, we have nazis walking down our streets. americans are killing more americans than terrorists are killing americans. our president says there are good people on both sides. label antifa a terrorist group. if antifa is a terrorist group are trying to stop not seize from marching down our streets -- nazis from marching down our
we went over to europe to defeat the not seize there. that must be a terrorist group as well. it's unacceptable, having a president who sounds like a drug three-year-old when he talks -- drunk three-year-old when he talks. the terrorists are here and they look like you and they look like me and they are killing americans that don't look like us. guest: i think greg got into other issues that c-span is not paying me the big bucks to comment on. that's ok. i'm thrilled to be here. us who disagree with president trump on a lot of the issues that you mentioned, i want to evaluate afghanistan on the merits.
i am struck by how much he sounds like president obama. they have been tortured by prolonging an operation they would both like to end and most americans would like to end. every year, they say we are probably going to leave next year. every year, they wind up realizing the least that option is to keep a few thousand u.s. forces. there is the potential for eight major risk to american territory coming out of south asia. there is no better way to keep cap on that than with intelligence and counterterrorism presences in afghanistan. capturedhe president the attention pretty well in his recent comments. host: the leader of u.s. central command was in front of congress earlier this year. this is an exchange between him
someone on the withdrawal from afghanistan. the government government of afghanistan once us to continue -- wants us to continue. >> that is my understanding. >> president obama -- barack obama said the u.s. cannot withdraw its forces. it is left to our adversaries. i have asked you a question about the specifics. before? read this op-ed that for respond to the benefit of the committee? >> i have read the article. the editorial. i know him. i respect him.
he is one of our leading experts on the region. he is a keen observer of what happening. with them, i would characterize where we are in the process as very early in the process. there is a framework by which we can move forward with discussions. that would involve the government of afghanistan. we clearly recognize that. they have to be part of this solution. they must be in the negotiation. we can't do that on their behalf. i recognize the government is being consulted. they are being kept informed of this. they are aware of the work we're doing to move forward on these talks.
host: react to what the general said. retired anda sense been replaced. this is a little bit old footage. it captures what's been going on. the afghan government has not been in the negotiation. it's about the future of their country. we help them build a constitutional democracy that they chose. nonetheless, their country is in a peace process to which they are not a party. that remains the case. this deal will require the next step of the taliban talking to the president and his government. whether the taliban likes it or not, that's why this doesn't go forward. they have such antipathy for the elected government of afghanistan. it the taliban are
going to have to realize even though they control 20% of the country, the government controls 60%. the rest is contested. that doesn't mean they have an automatic victory. them theo avoid giving impression we are leaving no matter what. it is not guaranteed. it should not be gearing tea until we see what the government can do, being brought into this process. david is calling from new jersey. he is a world war ii veteran. c-span.good morning, good morning. i would like to tell you something about myself. i am a world war ii veteran. i have spoken to hundreds and
hundreds of world war ii veterans and younger veterans from other wards. what do you think of the idea of the president sending troops to , whatthout being attacked should we do? what do you think of the idea that we draft his sons and thehters, the president, vice president, the cabinet, members of congress, ship them over to whatever country and put them into a combat unit and let's see how many wars we would be involved in. host: thank you for the comment. guest: i see where you are coming from, thank you for your
's amazing surface -- service. the military today's exceptionally good. rather than mandate a specifically chosen political group be put in uniform without their will, the more useful way to take that same spirit and channel forward is to try and create a conversation and expectation about national service. we need more people taking about national service. that should become more expected. been a big proponent of this. my service was in the peace corps, not the military. there are many things people do here at home. first responders are proper professional jobs. some kind of service, this should be the norm in our society.
socially expected. the general has done rate work on that. i recommend his advocacy. i hope the congress will listen. that will get at some of what you are talking about. i know you were saying something slightly different. i like the spirit, i don't support the specifics of your proposal. florida on theto republican line. good morning. caller: it's okeechobee. you were close. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to ask the gender -- gentleman. i want to know how safe it really is. my grandson, he has already gone
through the army. now, he is a jumper. they are sending him to afghanistan. if it is supposed to be so safe, why do they still need jumpers? on august 18. 20 he is still a baby as far as i am concerned. i've been listening to some stories. say it's getting worse over there. our soldiers are starting to die again. what need is there for a jumper? i appreciate you telling me how safe it is therefore my grandson. thank you for his service. american have had 15 fatality year in the last few years. the country overall is not
getting safer. the risk to american forces have declined dramatically. we are not jumping out of airplanes that often. we still do a certain amount of that in support of the afghans in limited numbers with our special forces. personnelcan military are not doing day-to-day combat. as i mentioned, we lost 15 people out of 15,000 who were there. is 1/1015 to many, it of 1%. tot is not much assurance see a family member hurt in operations. i'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of the risk or the importance of your service. talking about 1/10 of 1%, the annual rate of fatalities to american forces in afghanistan.
it's not a peaceful country. it is still an important mission. it's not the kind of risk we have seen in major wars in the past. host: we would like to thank michael o'hanlon for coming in and talking to us about afghanistan this morning. thank you very much. coming up, we will talk about the state of policing in america with a former new york city police department officer. ther on, we will talk about universal income. that's a one-on-one on what the policy proposal is and how it's going to be paid for. we will be right back. >> tonight, physicist and author
talks about our destiny beyond earth and achieving digital immortality. >> that takes everything known about you on the internet. your credit card records, what movies you've seen, what blinds pictures,o buy, your your audiotapes, it creates a profile which will last forever. we go to the library of the future, you will not pick out a book. you will talk to winston churchill. >> tonight at 8:00 on q&a. the wake of the shootings in el paso and dayton, the judiciary committee will return early to mark up three gun violence prevention bills. restrictings
firearms to people being deemed by court to be a danger to themselves. 4t coverage begins september on c-span. on the go, listen to our live coverage using the free video out. app. bookreporter on her kingdom of lies about cybercrime. >> it's hard to understand what happening to us, whether it's theexploitation of algorithms that run toward facebook in order to help the russian intelligence agency influence election or the ransomware that has taken down cities like baltimore and atlanta.
we have to understand the people behind these things. >> monday night on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with the lecturer at the college of criminal justice. here is a former york city police officer. we will talk with him about the state of policing in the united states. good morning. it's been five years since michael brown was shot and killed in ferguson, missouri. how has the national dialogue changed in these five years? guest: policing is in a terrible place. it has been damaged. no one can sustain the negative attention it's received. there is a collapse in
recruitment. the people you most want to be in the police business don't want to go near it. -- york, ability philadelphia, los angeles, police are risk averse. the california legislature essentially saying to the police the only time they can be in a shooting as if they are fired upon. if they fire in defense of their lives and the person is unarmed, it will probably you who will be prosecuted. about what wetalk are going to do post-policing in this country. host: you are the first person i have heard talking about post-policing. do you see it changed that much, where you think policing as it is today might not exist in the future? guest: there is no appetite among young people to do this
job. it was always a hard job and has become increasingly impossible. in the unionolice this week saying the job is dead. you had a total lack of leadership from mayors. in fact, mayors grandstanding and attacking their own police forces. you have police chiefs who are political animals now, and legislatures who should be responsibly selling legitimate policing. instead, they are trying to win points by attacking the police. so these are major issues. you have cities like chicago, where i am today, where the police in chapter 11, baltimore, they are not operating and are under federal decree. the judge is anonymous, unaccountable, is not responsible for safety at all. they spend all of their time trying to keep the police under their thumb, and the result is you have young people being shot, a gigantic violence problem in this city and other places. fear is not an equal opportunity
issue. fear is concentrated in poorer neighborhoods, where people are decamping. so you have a very bleak picture. this is the product of having a divisive right-left conversation. we need to have an intelligence central conversation that connects with people in real neighborhoods. that has not happened over the last five years. host: do you think there was a problem with policing before michael brown died in ferguson, or is this something that has happened since then? guest: it is a conflict adversarial job that involves coercion. that is the nature of policing. if you are going to redefine policing that it can never be conflicted or coercive, then you don't have policing trait so you need to figure out who you are going to send -- policing. so you need to figure out who you are going to send three never before have demands been higher on the police with more responsibilities and more of a portfolio, asking police to do things. and police have got the point.
they know now not to get to scenes too quickly, to be careful when engaging people. you have officer involved shootings now going down because officers get there when they get there. detroit finished the year with no officer involved shootings, which on the face sounds great but anything surface, that is bad news. that means the cops are taking the long and winding road around trouble. host: it almost makes what you are saying sound like police officers are really not doing the same job that they used to do in the past because they are worried about if they do something wrong, they will be prosecuted, is that what you are saying? guest: without a doubt. the whole conversation about cameras. conversation captured by people who do not know what they are talking about. i have never seen the conversation so dominated by people who do not know what policing is about. cameras are an excellent example of that. when you put a camera on a police officer, essentially are
saying they become risk-averse, challenging anybody is a coercive enterprise, and increasingly now you have people who are resistant. what officer is going to be on the street when you have problems like that? this has beenout the police are picking on people. i'm not saying they are not legitimate issues, but fear and violence are not proportionate in this country at all. just looking at a survey today at washington, d.c., 85% of people in ward 8, an african-american central ward, do not feel safe. you will see it in philly, st. louis. the downtown is not vibrant. it is a ghost town after dark because people are afraid. so you have to have police accountability, but you cannot put the police out of business. effectively, some of the larger cities in the country, the police are out of is in us.
they get there when they get there. host: how do you balance police accountability with the need for policing? of course, you are not saying police should not be prosecuted when they actually do something wrong, but how do you balance both of those impulses that the police cannot be above the law, that they are supposed to be enforcing for everyone else? guest: it is a serious challenge. the difficulty we have is we have gotten to a place that we cannot get out of. i do not know what we will do going forward. you just will not have young people. mostly in my experience, you had police who were altruistic, some butcould not be on the job, most were there for the right reasons. they will not risk prosecution now. they are willing to take risk. they are willing to go into unscripted situations in a country that is awash in guns, but they are not going to do that if they don't have the support of their own departments and mayors. and every cop you talk to now,
you will hear the same story in every city. you will hear a cop saying, i'm sorry i took this job. i cannot wait to get out. it is worth decision i ever made. had millions of hours of the same conversation but no talk at all about how we move forward, who will police the country. there was years ago, the commission said we should have a four-year degree for police officers. 99% of departments don't have that because it would be not possible. standards are lower, you are hiring people, coaxing them into the department. even when you get them in, they leave right away. this is a national crisis, a complicated one and it is not partisan. you need to have people take their democratic and republican mantles often have a conversation about how to protect the public in ordinary times and in crisis. as you see on school shootings and terrorism. host: let's let some of our callers join in.
we will open our regular lives but republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. .ndependents, (202)-748-8002 and once again, we will open up a special line because i also want to hear from law enforcement. we want to hear from the law enforcement and the first responders. you are the ones that america expects to be on the frontlines. we want to hear from you, law-enforcement peer your line is (202)-748-8003. talk to daniel, calling from germantown, maryland, on the democratic line. daniel, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for taking my call to good morning, america and everyone around the world. this call will be adversarial. i am a veteran myself, so i understand what it means to have a difficult job that put your
life at risk, and you are doing so with the intent to protect your community, your nation. fromhat i found missing your response, and don't get me wrong, i understand police have a difficult job and everybody ought to be supportive of those who protect our communities and enforce the law. the issue here is that when officers do something wrong, , they arem the police really coming out and saying, what that officer did was wrong, there is an issue with the way they handle conflicts and violence that they often escalate situations that is not conducive to maintaining the peace. you have a community that fears that they are going to be affected by the police instead of contacted by them, it seems your position is, well, you have to be violent with the people or
how do you police? i think that there is the problem. host: go ahead and respond. guest: thank you for your service. policing here is that is conflict of, adversarial. it does not mean it has to be that way. one of the reasons we have got to the point we are at is because you have had mayors and political leaders failing to explain what the police do. you have also had repeated untruths about policing and particular incidents in policing. the untruths builds on more untruths, and you will see it in a city like new york, which is professionald police departments, and no matter the statistics, they are hardly involved in shootings but they still get attacked. the better they get, the more criticized they are. that is the dynamic you are in at this point. host: let's go to jerry from florida on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse.
i would like to know if black police officers started to shoot and kill unarmed white people, what the repercussions of that would be? i will listen off-air. guest: again, you are in a country or you have millions and millions of police interactions. you are in a country where guns are commonplace. if you going to the cities, you will see an extraordinary amount of violence in st. louis, philly, baltimore -- baltimore and st. louis would be at the top of violence in the world at this point. some of the streets in america that the police are protecting are among the most dangerous part of the country. there is no proportionality about gun violence, who the victims are in many cities print virtually every single victim is an african-american or latino, cities like new york and chicago. the idea that there should be personality in police shootings is unrealistic. the catch-22 here is as this
conversation becomes more disconnected from reality, the remedy for policing is to get better people into the job, but this conversation over the last five years is making people run as far away as they can from the job. host: let's talk to pat from mcdonald, tennessee on the republican line. good morning. caller: morning. i am an older person. i was raised in the 1950's and 1960's. my parents, as well as others in that era, taught respect for law and the higher your life. in we respected school officials, teachers on down, and that comes down to whether or not you respect police officers and military. what i saw in the news this week was the fact that this police officer your life. we respected school officials, teachers on was fired from the b because he was out there. he was called to help take down this man who was disrespecting law and because the store owner
had called that he was selling a product outside his store that people usually buy inside his store. he was breaking the law. as a child, we learned in those areas, to respect the law and authority. we are a nation of laws and rules. it starts in the home. it starts and the church. another thing i don't understand, and i went to point this out, when white people are taken down by the police, you don't see them in the streets protesting. i just wanted to bring that to the forefront because i never hear it on the news. host: go ahead and respond. guest: we have to unify the country around this issue, and we have to recognize there has been a long pattern of abuse of african-americans in the legal system and police. it is undeniable. we are talking about respecting law and order for a long time, but law and order was not respectable. freer thany are
ever. they want to continue to be free. the issue progresses to balance demands for freedom with making sure one person' freedom does not become another persons's lack of peace of mind or personal safety. it is a lot of hard work conducted in the center with reasonable freer than ever. people.the police are one of the most popular institutions in the country. they get knocked down but they get right back up putting much everywhere. there is a gap in african-american communities, but most people get the issue of service but we have to rebuild the conversation. it has been hijacked. you cannot have a conversation with the most extreme people on either side, getting 90% of the attention paid this is not where the conversation is. if you go into communities in chicago, you will hear a different conversation than the one that gets the headlines. host: let's talk to eugene, who lives in arkansas city, kansas. eugene is a member of law enforcement himself. good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. this is special agent mccarty.i wanted to call and tell everyone
to have a good day, stay safe, and enjoy football season. host: eugene, how long have you been in law enforcement? caller: my whole family is in law enforcement. i heard a couple of comments from the lady about the white people getting arrested and stuff like that. the only thing i would have to say about that, is that ok? host: go ahead. caller: when the parent has told the child what to do, and the child disobeys her parents, that is when law enforcement steps in. when you had the ferguson problem or the one that happened in florida, the parents have already told us what the child is doing is inappropriate. everybody needs to obey law enforcement and stay out of their business. eugene?ything to add, guest: i think it is a good opportunity to say law enforcement, when it is rigidly undertaken is vital. you cannot have people in the street obstructing law
enforcement. you have had political leaders essentially encouraging that conduct, so police officers tell you when they get out of the car now, their authority is eroded. we have thousands of officers in new york city. this is not sustainable. you cannot have public officials being attacked on the street. no more than if you were on trial in a courtroom. you could not bring a professor from harvard law school to shout down the judge. there is only one arbitrator in these situations, and the police have to have that leeway. it is awful that you have political people, political people who are supposed to lead, encouragingntially disrespect and oppositional conduct towards the police. host: one of the discussions going on earlier this week was a new york city, where officer his role inired for eric garner's death in 2014. we talked about it a little bit during the show. it's look at what new york city
commissioner said about that firing. [video clip] >> being a police officer is one of the hardest jobs in the world. that is not a statement to elicit somebody from those we serve. it is a fact. cops have to make choices. sometimes very quickly every single day. some are split-second, life-and-death choices, often time they are choices that will be sorely and repeatedly examined by those with much more time to think about them than the police officer had. those decisions are scrutinized and second-guessed, both fairly and unfairly. no one blames that officer pan atleo. he would get out of bed, making choices and taking actions during an otherwise routine arrest that would lead to another person's death. but in officer's choices and actions, even made under extreme pressure, matter.
it is unlikely that mr. gardner. he was in such poor health that a brief struggle with the police would cause his death. he should have decided against resisting arrest, but a man with a family lost his life, and that is an irreversible tragedy. and a hard-working police officer who took the job to do good, to make a difference in his home community, has now lost his chosen career. that is a different kind of tragedy. the unintended consequence of mr. garner's death must have a consequence of his own -- its own. therefore, i agree with the legal findings and recommendations. it is clear that daniel pantaleo can no longer effectively serve as a new york city police officer. and carrying out the court's verdict in this case, i take no pleasure. i know that many will disagree with this decision, and that is their right. there are absolutely no victims here today. not the gardner family.
not the community at large, not the courageous men and women of the police department, who put their own lives on the line every single day in service to the people of this great city. today is a day of reckoning, but it can also be a day of reconciliation. host: the commissioner o'neill, did he make the right decision? guest: i will not get into garner case. it is important to talk about the police perspective, and that engage with civilians with minimal training, and when they comply, there is no issue. but when there is opposition, that is a problem. inevitably, a police find themselves improvising, scrambling, and trying to devise ways to get someone into custody. i what police departments are great at is telling officers what they cannot do, and to condemn them for the outcome. but to this day, have never provided a roadmap for making this kind of an arrest. it is up to the officers.
what is going on in new york goes on around the country now. they have figured it out that they will no longer accept the vacuum they are placed in and they will be risk-averse. the agreement cops had when they took the job, the unstated agreement, was they would do the best they could as long as they were not wholly unreasonable, there would be support for the actions they took. now, that has absolutely changed. officers would go in headfirst, they would try to resolve problems. the vast majority of police people, by the way, are not screened in terms of having physical capacities to fight with people. even though that is sometimes what they have to do. so the police are left to figure these situations out. this moment, the nypd cannot say how this arrest should have been made by the numbers because there is no answer to that. but what they are able to do is criticize the officer. , who ist's talk to ron
calling from elizabeth, indiana. morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much. i would like to say in the face of so many incidents, like the incident with daniel pantaleo, and the lady who lived in florida who was shot and the alley because she was trying to report what she thought was a crime, shouldn't officers be less enforcers and jackbooted bags and be more peace officers? officers whol like unlawfully murder a citizen should be more than fired from their job. they should be prosecuted for murder. guest: well, it is important to get perspective on this. there are cameras rolling 24/7 across the united states that you do not see. there are many videos of police abuse you do not see. the media is looking for them, trying the best to find them. they are not out there, and they increasingly will not be out
there because police will find ways to not engage unless a days absolutely necessary, but the notion, and we just saw "the new york times" this past weekend to go to fresno to cover the police officer punching someone because they are so short of videos in the tri-state area, which we have thousands and thousands of officers with leo all the time. those videos are not surfacing because by and large you do not see evidence of abuse. when you reference some of these shootings, you have to remember the contestable facts. it is very rare that one of these shootings does not involve facts that when you lay them out on the table are complex. portions of the media have specialized in giving snippets of these events. also, by the way, not correcting the record. some of the most notable shootings have been debunked in terms of impropriety on part of the police, but those stories still get told and retold. it is important to push back
because when you fail to push back against falsehoods, it just creates more falsehood and ever broader castigation and maligning of the entire police profession because when you have an incident in one department, thes charged to each of 800,000 officers in the country. host: let's talk to ed, calling from leavenworth, kansas. ed's former law enforcement. good morning. caller: good morning. i left the police department in the late 1990's, retired. guested to know if your knows of any movements by the police departments to weed out white supremacy from its ranks. because when i was a police officer, it did not seem -- we did not have officer involved shootings all the time.
now, it seems like they are happening every month or more. theink what has happened is police departments have been infiltrated by white supremacy. i just want to know if your guest knows of any type of plan or movement to weed out white supremacy, people with those type of mentalities, joining the police department. thank you. guest: needless to say, people that are haters should not be allowed in the police department. and when they go through hiring, they do what they can to find their social media and go after that. it is important on these shootings. post" went out and tried to find a case against the police that they were gratuitously shooting people. they have never done that. when you narrow down all of the shootings at police are involved in, if you take even the most controversial ones, by and large, you will find more complexity in the stories and the tagline. let's go through every one of
these shootings, let's have the conversation, and let's demonstrate why the officer fired. i think you have 10% to 12% of shootings done by cops provably, where police were provoked in the shooting. obviously, we need to remedy police problems, but the conversation we have had in the last five years takes us in the opposite direction. we are not going to get people into this job. we are going to have the social confidence. we are going to have the background, the education to work in the worst places. wealthy communities will do fine in all of this. like everything else. it will be the poor communities in the country that need the best police people that will not get them into the ranks. and we are seeing that, by the way. there are departments after departments and hundreds and hundreds of vacancies with officers forced to work double shifts and they are dead on their feet because of me people
just do not want to be on the job. you have police chief same they would never allow their kids to go near policing and the other thing is you don't hear cops even in this conversation because most of them have decided it is not a defensible proposition. it is just a date of retirement and that is what they are planning to do. host: let's go to james in chicago on the independent line. james, good morning. caller: good morning. hello, mr. o'donnell. i have been listening to you, and all i have heard you do is whine. buck up. do you want the police to be accountable or not? and why don't you want the police to have cameras? why don't you want the police to have body cameras? one more thing, the picture of that trump tower was done on purpose pray to ever put that trump picture in the back of the tower did it on purpose. why don't you want the police to have body cameras and stop whining.
come on, snowflake. buck up. guest: i don't think it is whining. people don't want the job. if you have a way to get police in the job, unless you do not want to have policing, which some people say they don't want that. in terms of police body cameras, police rake the law to enforce the law. they use force that would otherwise be unlawful to get people into custody. that is not my opinion. that is a fact. arreststhink one of 100 uses force, but who in their right mind is going to use force in an ambiguous deteriorating situation in this kind of climate and have that captured on video and risk being criminalized, demonized, ran out of town? you could call that whining, but we are dealing with humans. we are trying to get humans in this profession. they are flawed, imperfect, but 911 are the ones who call millions of times, and we are
having a real difficulty. it will get worse in getting people into the job. maybe technology, maybe there will be something that can take us to another level post-policing era. that is the conversation we will have to have data in the country. host: let's talk to jay from north charleston south carolina -- north charleston, south carolina on the independent line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i want to basically say, mr. o'donnell, you seem like a pretty levelheaded, objective person. i definitely have no issue with you or the organization that you work for. i don't have a question. i have more of a statement. here when ill up hear previous callers make certain comments, and i just want to weigh in. if we are going to talk about black officers killing white
people and basically have no repercussion, i have to bring to light that i don't think they have never been subject to 200 years of organized slavery, supported by the policymakers in the industries. and it is still around today, by the way. and they have never been held accountable. i liked another comment that a previous caller made about white supremacy. what it ist agree with and prevalent with what i do not agree with is it has always been around. it is an ingredient that has been kneaded and baked. it is just a huge part of what this country is built on. if we are going to get anywhere and understand this gentleman, the snowflake comments, you have to understand that that is a
ackly a symptom -- basically symptom of growing up in these communities that me and that other gentlemen share, but what i won't do, like i said, we do not have to have a gloves off approach. and, howomprehensive can i say this?, substantive conversations with people in law enforcement. you know, with policymakers. with people just like that gentleman in our community. i mean, like i said, they grow up in neighborhoods just like that. we are not going to get anywhere. it is just going to be like -- i call it almost like when we watch debates. political trench warfare. host: go ahead and respond. right.it is it is political trench warfare. i am in chicago, since the 1980's, you have had thousands of murders not talked about with no attention at all you have
communities that have hollowed out that basically do not exist anymore because there is such a fear factor. you have virtually nobody being apprehended because a law enforcement has been delegitimized. people are shooting on the corner. of victims.ilencing they have been written out of the equation and while it is absolutely important to look at history and try to take lessons from history going forward, what is the plan to protect the most vulnerable, poorest people in the country in terms of their safety, their security, and their peace of mind? , first, not to plan, but for them to be grandstanding and attacking their own police, and treating them like a dragon that has to be slain, that has not been helpful in his conversation. maybe that can be reversed. maybe mayors will start not playing politics, trying to talk to a sliver of the electorate, and tried to look at the overall picture of public safety and what needs to be done. it is not only have to be the
police. police do not have to be heavy-handed. there was room for quality policing, but let's have a conversation in the middle, where most people are. the police are in the 70% approval rating and politicians are at 10% rate government is generally at 17%. can bepolice institution destroyed, i think it bodes poorly for us as a democracy. host: we would like to thank eugene o'donnell, former police the nypdat and lecture at the john jay college of criminal justice. thanks for being with us. guest: thanks very much. host: coming up, we will talk with sebastian johnson about the universal basic income and what it is, who gets it, and how it is going to get paid for. we will be right back. ♪
announcer: tonight on q&a, theoretical physicist, micheo ka ko talks about our destiny beyond earth and achieving digital immortality. >> digital immortality takes everything you know about you on the internet, your digital footprint, your credit card records, what movies you see, what winds you like to buy, what countries you visit. your videos, pictures, your audiotapes, and creates a digitized profile that will last forever. when you go to the library of the future, you will not check out a book about winston churchill. you will talk to winston churchill. announcer: tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. announcer: monday night on the communicators, cnbc
cybersecurity reporter on her book "kingdom of lies," about the world of cybercrime. >> if we want to understand why these things are happening to us, whether it is the exploitation of the algorithms that run twitter and facebook in order to help the russian intelligence agency influence an election, or the ransomware that has now taken down big cities like baltimore and atlanta, we have to understand that people who are behind these things and all of them. announcer: monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. announcer: "washington journal" continuous. host: we are back with sebastian johnson, the advocate for universal basic income and to talk, called a ted
the case for basic income. good morning. guest: good morning. thanks for having me. host: first of all, tell us what a basic income is. guest: the idea of a guaranteed income basically says that for every citizen in the united states, you will get a set of no strings attached cash money from the government to assist with basic needs. when we think about universal basic income, each word in that term is kind of up for debate when you think about what that means in terms of implementation. so we talk about universality, who gets it? is it every citizen, taxpayer, everyone who works? when we talk about basic, how much money is enough for basic needs? many advocates have said $1000. host: $1000 a? guest: a month. some people say 500 dollars for base income. some people say more.
that it should be enough to get you above the poverty line and be a living wage. finally, what kind of income? should it be income in terms of the government redistributing it via tax credit? should be a dividend from a sovereign fund? there are a lot of variations, but at the end of the day, it is no strings attached money to every person to account for basic needs. host: and how would this be paid? with this be money coming out of the government, state government, city government? where does this money come from? guest: i think where the money comes from is kind of up for debate. when you look at the united states, there has been a number of experiments around universal basic income over the years. the most successful version of a universal basic income in the united states is in the state of alaska that has a permanent dividend for every citizen in alaska. that basic income payment is paid for through royalties on oil and gas in the state.
host: and with this universal based orome, is it should it be based on where you live? for example, we know that living in downtown washington, it costs completely different than living in the middle of iowa, which costs different from living in downtown san francisco. where do you put that number? how do you figure out how much a person should get based on where they live, or do you? do you just say, it is this amount, and no matter where you live, this is where you get? guest: absolutely. some advocates say there should be cost living adjustments based on geography. i honestly think the basic income is one tool for addressing the geographic inequalities that leads to differences in cost of living, availability of employment, economic opportunities in different areas. when you take money out of the
hands of the 1% and taking and put it into the hands of families across the country, you can stimulate the economy and a lot more places than our current economy. host: this is the topic we are talking about not just because. it has come up in the democratic presidential nomination process. andrew yang has championed the idea of universal basic income. but he is not the first. how long has this idea of universal basic income been around? long: it is an idea with a historical category. one of the first americans to champion the idea of basic income is thomas payne. he said in "common sense," and setting up this new republic, we should make sure each laborer has enough money to live on. it has also been championed by martin luther king, wilton friedman, and we came close to passing a universal basic income in the form of a negative income tax under president richard nixon. it is an idea that has been
recurring in our history. and it has come back because of income inequality, because of the threat in our nation, but because people understand our economic structures are rigged for the top of the economy, and we need increasing economic policies that spread the wealth and bring economic stability and security to our families. host: let's let our viewers join in on the conversation. if you are in support of a universal basic income, we want you to call at (202)-748-8000. if you oppose the idea of a universal basic income, we want to hear from you, as well but we want you to call, (202)-748-8001 . once again, if you support the idea of a universal basic income , we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8000. if you oppose, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8001. do not just tell us if you
support or oppose, tell us why. keep in mind, we are always reading on social media at twitter @cpsanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. behind the thought making sure everyone has a basic income in the united states? one of the things we hear talked about a lot right now is are we talking about the basic income for just citizens? are we talking about basic income for everyone inside the united states borders, meaning immigrants? which one are we talking about here? just basic income for citizens for everyone in this country? guest: one thing i will say is that undocumented immigrants in our country pay about $9 billion in taxes every year. there is a context in which people who are not citizens to they do contribute to our workforce and economy. some people say if you pay taxes
and you receive a benefit to the tax code in terms of child tax credit or other ways in which we might be putting more dollars into the pocketbooks of families that undocumented immigrants should be eligible for that. others say that the basic income should only apply to those who are citizens and only to those over 18, and we should think of other ways to support children. i think there are a lot of variations. if we talk about universal basic income, then many people should get that as much as possible. i would support a basic income that does go to everyone contributing to our economy in terms of the tax code. i also think we need a smaller basic income for children. instance,e say, for senator cory booker has put out a plan to support a baby bond for children in low-income families. that is a form of guaranteed income through the financial markets.
i think there are different ways in which you can support populations and that these different funding streams can constitute what we think of as a sick income. ok, mr. andrew yang is not the first politician to bring this up. former secretary of state and democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton mentioned this during her campaign in 2016. in her memoir, she brings this up and talks a little about why she did not make it a major part of her campaign. here is what she wrote in her campaign, her memoir of what happened -- "unfortunately, he could not make the numbers work to provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen. you would have to raise enormous sums of money. that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs. we decided that it was exciting but not realistic and left it on the shelf." is it realistic now?
guest: i think that the plans are realistic and i think you have to consider two things. one is the economic benefit of providing basic income to working families. we know that most of the gains in our economy have accrued to the top 1%. a lot of that money just sits on the shelf. it has not been reinvested productively into the economy. the demand produce that fuels employment and jobs at corporate levels. so there will be an economic benefit to implementing basic income. the other thing is that when you start out with the plan that is paying you $12,000 a year, is that the ideal? we underestimate what kind of economic pain families are in. the majority of families in the country could not handle a $400 expense. even if we are not implementing a $1000 basic income from the jump, even if we start at a lower level and make it so
families have a lifeline, that is still a massive benefit to working families. host: let's let our viewers join. let's talk to david, calling from orange park, florida. david opposes the idea of a universal basic income. good morning. caller: good morning, guys. my question would be if you are a small business owner, how are you going to find employees when the country is giving away money to whoever might need it? we are told that businesses have to bring in illegal immigrants now to fill positions. now, you are saying you are going to give everybody a free income? how is a small businessman going to fill positions? guest: i think that is a great question. i think what we observe in the economy over time for small and large businesses is that increasingly, businesses look to cut their labor costs, so they moved to contingent contracts
with employment. these jobs are part of the reasons families are strapped. they do not provide the same benefits and employment. in an economy with the basic income, where people have options that allow them to support their families while still participating in the economy given the types of jobs that are out there, contingent on employment, this policy provides close ability for small business owners to offer part-time work to offer work that might be more contract based and not to have the same types of responsibility we expect of employers. economy with the basic income, you provide is this is what the flex ability to hire more workers and reduce the cost for businesses because there were no longer be a need for the employer to be supporting all of their employees through benefits because people would have basic income. host: speaking of economy, i
want to go to what president trump said at the g7 on the economy. let's let our viewers see what he said recently on the state of the economy in the united states. [video clip] president trump: our country is doing great. everybody who saw me yesterday copyingng me people are because we got rid of large numbers, more than any president has gotten rid of, and we are doing really well. you people want a recession because you think maybe that is their way to get trump out. maybe that is the way to get trump out. i don't think that would work because, look, if anything, you have to go into trade negotiations to get it ultimately, it will be many times were our country is doing really well. we have honorable ideals, and i'm straightening them out. host: the reason i wanted to hear president trump talk about the economy is because the government says the economy is doing great. does that help or hurt your case
for universal basic income? guest: i think that if we judge the economy as the president does, based on the stock market, based on the single metric of the unemployment rate, then, sure, we can say they are doing great. but we have had structural fundamental structural problems in this economy since the recession. this recovery has not been equal recovery for most people. the jobs that have replaced the jobs lost in the recovery have been service, low-wage jobs. most people have not seen their pay increase to where they were before in the recession. so the economy is structurally weak. we also need to think about the future of our economy and the number of jobs that will be lost. one of the reasons andrew yang has done so well is that he has really focused our attention on this problem increasing automation in our economy. there was a study that said
about 43% of current american jobs are in danger of being automated. when we think about our future economy, the structural weaknesses we see in our economy, i think there is a strong case for basic income still. host: let's talk to glenn, calling from pennsylvania. glenn supports a universal basic income. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i supported and i can tell you where to get the money from, too. burns $10l government trillion every year. they burn it. hello? host: go ahead. we can still hear you. caller: the federal government .urns $10 trillion every year they say the reason why they because offire is the dollar value. also, the iraq war, we print 10 chilean dollars to fight the
war. did you know that, america? -- $10ean dollars trillion we print to fight the war. money they are going to burn this year and next year, don't burn it. give it to the american people. host: let's see if we can go to mike, calling from cleveland, ohio. good morning. caller: morning. this wholef support idea of increasing some kind of assistance to families. tie to living wage, raising the minimum wage, how does it tie to regaining those industries that were lost ,n providing families with jobs benefits, wages that were collectively bargained for? do you support changing the card
check system so that we can create, re-create the middle class that once was? host: go ahead and respond. ubi isi think that definitely one element of a highroad economic agenda that takes into account the need to state wages in the economy to protect the ability to collectively bargain. not only to bring back industries and manufacturing but to make those industries green and sustainable. i think this policy is about looking at the ways in which our social safety net supports families when those elements are not there, and when times are hard, that we have a system like a basin income for families to fall back on, as well as make sure families have the economic
capacity to start businesses to go back to school and improve their lives in the labor market. host: what would be the difference between universal basic income and the social security system that exists right now? would people, would you say people who get social security should also get universal basic income? what would be the difference between those systems? by the way, who would administer the universal basic income? with that need a new government agency -- would that need a new government agency? guest: so in terms of should people who received ubi also receives social security? there are schools of thought. in one plan, a current social safety net program would be a spotlight for universal basic income caller:there are schools. the idea -- so the idea is people already receiving a certain amount would be harmless. others disagree and say that it should be an added benefit everyone receives. one difference between ubi and
social security is that social security is an entitlement in which you are paying into a system with the expectation you get a contribution based on what you paid in. ubi does not have that same structure. i think that in terms of the administration, i do not think you would really need to create a new agency. is adepthe irs, which at sending out checks and making sure everyone gets payments on time. i don't think it would be a lot of administrative costs. one of the benefits of ubi is unlike other social benefit programs, there aren't means testing, drugs testing, all these things that create increased cost for and administered a program. host: let's talk to martin from fairbanks, alaska. martin supports a universal basic income. martin, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning i am a first time caller. i appreciate your show. alaska.with my cat in
i support learning more about because asal income your guest, sebastian, mentioned, we are receiving a dividend in alaska for it i want to encourage other alaskans to colin -- alaska. one to encourage other alaskans to call in. something to the department of law or motor vehicles, the university of you're $1600 dividend could easily be garnished in one to two to three, to seven different ways. so there is a sense that there is some reading to the economic system, even at the local level.
questionn and my because i am learning more about it, first is two things. i have lived off the grid, or i could live on $20 a day nearing the roadside. i have also lived in rural alaska, what we call the bush. i have also lived in an urban area in fairbanks or anchorage. my numbers come out to be, if you looked on the roadside, their advocating because there is a squabble about the dividend being dipped into by our legislature here in alaska. they offered us a $1600 dividend , where it should be the full payment being argued in alaska right now. people can look at it for themselves. because i am learning more about it, sebastian, maybe you could weigh in on your comment about thomas payne and "common sense,"
what he advocated and give us a little history of alaska's history on the dividend fund and the success of universal income. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i'm glad we had a caller from alaska, where the permanent fund dividend is one of the most there isrograms that in alaska. there was a survey done where in alaska, they have no sales tax, where respondents of the survey indicated they would be willing tax ina state income order to keep their permanent fund dividend the same size. i think that one of the big challenges or bogeymen out there is how this will discourage work somehow, people are lazy, we will not see that from alaska employment. we have not seen that in terms here andments done
internationally around universal income. they offer no strings attached cash transfers, and their data from kenya shows there is not a reduction in labor force participation, and you can see there is an increase in schooling, care, with no noticeable impact on unemployment. host: let's talk to gerard, calling from lawrenceville, georgia. gerard is against the idea of universal basic income. caller: good morning. when you talk about universal income, you are talking about people that are working, take money from them and give it to other people. it is not generated by the government. as far as in alaska, with the guy just talked about, when i guy in, i am paying that alaska. that is a tax on people that use petroleum, and they have no
right to it. they are not doing anything for it. reversal income is just not any good because you take from people that work and give it to people that are not working. logic, why why that you cannot see that on its face. host: go ahead and respond to that. guest: my response to that would be we currently have a system where we take money from people who work and redistribute that money. doesurrent taxation system that inherently. i think the problem has been when you look at where are the tax dollars going, who is paying their fair share of taxes, you see we are not taking our tax dollars and putting it in to productive use. a lot of our tax dollars are not being put into social programs that are shown to be effective moving people out of poverty. the most successful anti-poverty program is a tax credit for working families. time, sosee that over
compareds. is low tax to the oecd countries and we are also historically low tax, marginal tax rates, particular lien the wealthy against historical lows. we have a system in which we are right now finding most of our system on the backs of people working, and we are not asking the very wealthy to pay their fair share. there is enough capacity in our economy to increase our current tax burden to make sure we don't increase it on working families and asking them to pay their fair share. and that redistribution in and of itself is not a bad thing, but we should make sure that we are redistributing the wealth to working families. host: i want to read you one quote from ian golden, who says "ubi offers a panacea to corporate and political leaders. postponing a discussion about future jobs. the demographic pressures in rich countries and the deep proposes toi
developmental prospects, as to the needs for this conversation. there must be more part-time work, shorter weeks, and rewards for homework, created in industries and social and individual care. forget about ubi to reverse rising inequality and social dislocation, we need to radically think about the way we change income and work." what would be your response to him? guest: i agree with his analysis that we are heading for a fundamental change in our economy that are going to require us to think differently about employment, to think differently about the way we structure our economy, how many hours we show up, and to value different work. i think that ubi is not a panacea. i think it is a ladder for the economy. ubi, because you are making it universal and it is not based on
the kind of employment you are doing, it will lead us to value and subsidizing at-home care, nurturing work, a lot of work that happens in the home, may byep -- mostly work done women not compensated in the economy. i think his analysis is right and i don't see ubi as a solution, but i think it is a bridge to have fundamental conversations about where we need to go with our economy. host: let's get one more caller. maria, from fairfax, virginia, and maria supports universal basic income. good morning, maria. caller: good morning. yes, i do support it but with some limitations because i believe that the companies have hired undocumented people and they have responsibility for them so they can be legal and gain their permanent residence and eventually their citizenship. i came to this country legally. from day one, i worked, and from
day one, i pay taxes, and i got sponsored by the company to switch my international to my permanent residence. i am on my way to work now, and i don't think it is fair that i have to work seven days a week. i am a retired teacher but a freelance interpreter, and the with every dayee at work are unbelievable. like i said, it is a beautiful day here in fairfax, virginia, and i have to be inside a ofpital working with a lot undocumented people living on the beach, for free. host: i think we lost her. go ahead and respond. guest: part of the response is it is a myth that documents immigrants are kind of here just not working or receiving benefits.
they are not eligible for most of the benefits other taxpayers would be eligible for, and they are still, as addressed earlier, paying federal taxes. i do think it is a question of debate whether or not a universal basic incomeuniversalo undocumented workers. should, andat it that people who are undocumented deserve to be both supported but also protected by the economy. would like to thank the advocate for universal basic income for being with us this morning. thank you so much. coming up tomorrow, stick with washington journal where tomorrow morning, we will talk to university of maryland economics professor and center for american progress on the state of the u.s. economy and how it could impact the 2020 election. you will also hear from bloomberg tax reporter lauren davidson -- laura davidson.
stick with us, we will be back again tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. make sure your here for washington journal. have a good day. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] announcer: newsmakers is next with stephen law, president and ceo of the senate leadership fund. he talks about efforts to keep it republican senate majority in 2020. after that, we will have an update on president trump at the g7 summit in france. p.m., amyt 1:30 klobuchar greets visitors in new hampshire.