♪ host: ordering. it is monday, january 29, 2024. the house convenes at noon.

will begin on the news that three u.s. service members were killed sunday on a joan -- in a drone strike in a basin northeast to jordan. yesterday president biden vowed the u.s. would respond. republicans, including donald trump, said the drone strike was a consequence of the biden administration's weakness on the world stage. our phone lines are open. here are your thoughts on that attack. democrats (202) 748-8000 cap republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. a special line for active and retired military (202) 748-8003 stop that is also the number you can text if you want to send as a text. please include your name and where you are from. otherwise catch up with thousand on social media.

a good monday morning. start calling it now. this is the headline from npr. "biden valves to respond after three u.s. troops killed and 34 we did the drone attack." this was the president yesterday briefly in south carolina. >> [inaudible] we shall respond. host: that was president biden yesterday. this is the associated press. their latest reporting on that attack and the three u.s. service members killed have not

been named yet as is standard procedure for 24 hours after those debts are announced. this is what the associated press has had to say about the attack. it was a one-way drone strike. the large drone struck a support base in jordan known as tower 22. it is used in advise and assist missions for jordanian troops. the three who were killed and most of the wounded were army soldiers according to several u.s. officials who spoke to the associated press. the small installation includes u.s. engineering, aviation, and securiroops. lloyd austin said the troops were deployed there to work on the lasting defeat of isis. three the drone struck near the troop sleeping quarters which explains the high casualty count.

all of that reporting from the associated press. a lot more to find out about that attack. it is noted tower 22, we will show you a picture of it and its location from the washington post. you can see that facility in northeast jordan near the borders of syria and iraq. the picture above that map shows october 12 satellite photo, showing tower 42. it is part of a constellation of bases they describe as 2500 u.s. troops in iraq and another 900 in syria. that gives you a sense of the size of that base and what it looks like there in northeast jordan. taking your phone calls and getting your response to that attack. the response to that attack from the white house, administration

officials, congress, former president trump as well. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. the line for active and former retired military members (202) 748-8003. pete is up on the later line for military members. good morning. caller: good morning. i was united states air force 1979 to 1983, in turn the iranian hostage situation and we had a saying but we never did it. bomb, bomb, bomb iran. host: what you think should happen today? caller: we should'vethem a parking lot back in 1979. they are sponsoring terrorists l er the middle east. they wt to wipe us and israel f e face of the earth. that tells you we should'veade

them a parking lot in 1979 with 52 host: that is pete out of long island. here is walter in washington, d.c. caller: good morning. how are you today? i am looking at this and i am disappointed about what happened. this is joe biden's fault. i voted for this guy. i had no idea he was going to be this bad. trump, who i do not care for too much, did cut funding from iran. joe biden started giving iran money again. he also undid all of trump's immigration policies. now we have a mess with the border. we have 6 million new people in

the country. we have all of these things going on in the military. we did not have these issues under trump. joe biden needs to take responsibility. he should drop out. he is ruining everything. we had peace in the middle east under trump. i do not understand why president biden and even president obama, why they want to keep giving iran money. all they do is take the money and fund these proxy wars. the houthi especially. they were terrorists. host: got your point. you mentioned donald trump. this was his statement from his social media account, saying the attack on that military in jordan marks a horrible day for america.

most profound sympathies with the families of the brave service members we have lost. i ask all americans to join me in praying for those who have been wouhis -- the brazen attack on the united states is another horrific and tragic consequence of joe biden's weakness and surrender. the former president about the current president. this is cindy in connecticut. republican. good morning. caller: my condolences to the families of those that were lost and injured. pretty much the last caller took the words out of my mouth. everybody wants to know why he is doing it. like a child, because of trumped arrangement syndrome, this is where we find ourselves. not only did he find iran, but he went back and funded the u.n. and now we find this weekend that 12 or may be more u.n.

employees were involved in the october 7 attacks on israel. what more evidence do you need to admit that you guys are wrong . just say you are wrong about everything. covid. everything. we need to pray and we need to pray hard. thank you. host: this is bob in california. good morning. caller: i am afraid i will have to vote for donald trump again. i never dreamed i would after the insurrection at the capital, but biden cannot do his job. he is no commander in chief. we need someone strong to attack anyone who attacks us and not hesitate. i am going to vote for trump . america will once again take a leadership position. thank you very much. host: back to the line for

current and former members of the military. david out of minneapolis. caller: good morning. i did six years in the military, only in intelligence. i've been calling my congresspeople warning them about escalation against the u.s. since october. i would like everyone to remember there been more attacks on u.s. troops since october 7 and biden's relentless support of the genocide of palestinians. he has chosen to bomb the houthis have killed no one before and they are retaliating by hitting ships. before they were not hitting ships, they were just capturing them. our government keeps escalating this and is pointing the finger at everyone else.

i want to throw one more part of u.s. history out there. pearl harbor, a lot of people will say pearl harbor, we did not do anything. we had an embargo on japan and they bombed us for it. the u.s. called it wrong. when the u.s. is bombing yemen for imposing a peaceful blockade, as they were previously, that was the u.s. then doing the same thing is pearl harbor. host: david in minneapolis. general charles brown was on abc yesterday talking about the situation in yemen but also the wider middle east conflict. here is about a minute of his interview on abc this week. [video clip] >> part of our work here is to make sure as things have

happened in the middle east is not to have the conflict brought in. as i provided vice when we think about the approach we take, we want to ensure we protect our forces and at the same time do not have this broaden into a much wider conflict. >> when you walk this fine line of not wanting it to escalate, what would you say to those people say they are not being tough enough on these militants, they are not being tough enough on iran? >> i would also ask if they want a broader conflict? do you want a full-scale war? we do not want to go down a path that drives greater escalation within the region. >> when you look at the houthis, how much of their capabilities do you think we have reduced? >> i will not characterize how much, but we have had an impact on their capabilities.

host: general charles brown yesterday on abc's this week. here is the secretary of defense lloyd austin, his statement on twitter yesterday after the death of those three u.s. so were announced. he said "i am od and deeply saddened by the death of our u.s. service members and the wounding of other troopsn an attack against u.s. and coalition forces deployed to a site in northeast to a site in northeast georgia near the syrian border to work for the lasting defeat of isis." speaker mike johnson, his statementsang "we are saddened bth loss of the three american heroes in jorda we are praying for their families and 25 other service members injured." that number now up to 34. america must send a crystal clearessage, he said that attacks will not beolated. a republican in the senate relas

issue saying "it is time to act with purpose and resolve in response to the attacks that have taken the lives of amic service members and injured scesore. we must respond to these repettacks by iran and its proxies by sikg against iranian targets and its leadership. the biden administration's response have only invited more attacks. it is time to act decisively for the world to see." noting more than 150 attacks across the middle east since the war in gaza started three months ago. taking your phone calls and getting your thoughts on that attack that killed three u.s. service members, what it means for the united states in the middle east. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. independents (202) 748-8002, and current and former members of

the military (202) 748-8003. staying on the military line this is albert in california. good morning. host: good morning -- caller: good morning. turn down your television for me it works a lot better. first of all, semper fi. i was in the marine corps in 1975 and 1978 and a lot of times i make reference to the fact that it was one of the very few times we were in peacetime. i just woke up, being a marine and serving overseas. i served right after vietnam and it was still one of those issues. one of our main concerns was who was our president? i think you know who that was. this is more of a comment, being a pentecostal man. i am retired now. you are my first call every morning so i more aware of

politics. i think america needs to be more involved. i am practically in tears so i will get off the phone. it is just sad for america. i know a lot $áof men and women and people feel just like me. i come from a family in nebraska. i am half russian. we all came from russia in the 1900s. we are a military family. it hurts. god bless america. thank you. host: this is crystal and west palm beach, florida. line for democrats. good morning. caller: i am calling to express concern about our unconditional support for israel and their war against gaza. i am wondering how we can become so outraged at the deaths of our three soldiers, which is tragic,

yet as of today there are 26,000 people in gaza that have been killed by support of our bombs and ammunition. 2000 pound bombs dropped on a defensive people without a military. this is tragic. americans need to question -- we can feel like solidarity with united states and israel, but we do not understand they feel solidarity with their people. israel has been adventuring into additional escalating war in the lebanon area. iraq. these people feel solidarity and they want us out. host: fine for republicans.

pay areas out of south dakota. -- line for republicans. perry is out of south dakota. caller: thank you for taking my call. this comes down to foundational principles. in this country we know where we get our foundation from. the people that wrote our beginnings in this country understood from a certain book. over there they believe in a certain book. one image sticks out to me on october 7. the hostages were on the back of a pickup truck and they were hauling them through palestine and people were celebrating hostages. the palestinians allow themselves to be taken over by a

harsh government. it is a government and a foundational principles of that government that makes it a problem across the world. host: this is peter baker in today's new york times. his analysis of what the attack on this u.s.-based, the death of the three service members means. he says this is the day president biden and his team had feared for more than two months. the day that wrote level -- the day that low-level attacks turned deadly and intensified the pressure on the president to respond in kind. the president must decide how far he is willing to go in terms of retaliation and the risk of a wider war he has sought to avoid since the october 7 terror attacks by hamas touched off the current middle east crisis. he noted more than 150 attacks since october 7.

the first deaths of american troops will require a different level of response. american officials have said the president's advisers were in consensus as they consulted with him by secure video conference on sunday. what remains unclear is whether mr. biden would strike targets inside iran itself as his critics have urged him to do, saying he would be a coward if he did not as one of them put it. this is bernice out of detroit. democrat. good morning. caller: i have been listening to your show for years and i listen to the public as they make their announcements. i think we as americans need to get more educated on politics, and we need to take some civic courses. my remembrance is we never got

so publicly involved in politics until the obama administration. i remember when obama struggled so hard to make that deal with iran. he finally got that deal. donald trump came in and he cannot wait to destroy that deal. he went against all of our friends and those that support us and fight these wars with us and left us hanging because he destroyed the deal with iran. i remember when he went over in syria and destroyed the relationship we had with the iraq troops.

his people say we did not want for anything when trump was in. that is not true. there was a war with donald trump. that iraqi war, that war. donald trump went over there. do not leave joe biden time to get those troops out. when biden went to get the troops out it was chaotic. ■yi hear the public blaming him for the border. they need to learn what the position of the president is. i think i've said enough that i hope and pray i said something that would get our citizens a little more educated. host: got your point. on donald trump and specifically iran, peter baker, more from his column just a follow up on some of what you were saying.

he notes that iran and its proxies did attack america and its allied interests during mr. trump's presidencies at one point mr. trump called off a retaliatory strike. he did order strike that killed the top iranian general, but when iran responded to that with missile strikes that injured but do not kill american troops, mr. trump order no further action. he goes into joe biden's presidency, saying he has ordered military strikes on several occasions in the past few months since the attacks have started, including on christmas day, just hours after a drone strike by iranian backed militants injured service members. biden ordered airstrikes in iraq in response and order the u.s. military to target the militia commander blamed for the attacks. american forces carried out their order with their own strikes and baguette that killed the commander there. -- their own drone strikes in

baghdad that killed the commander there. charles in arkansas. republican. caller: good morning. i think the problem is there already is a wider war. the biden administration does not want to recognize it because they are wedded to a policy of appeasement of iran. this goes all the way back to the obama administration. i do not see how you can negotiate a nuclear deal with the theocratic regime that hates you and says so. appeasement is the problem. i hope the changes course. thank you. -- i hope the biden administration changes course. caller: -- host: president biden was in south carolina this

weekend. south carolina the focus of the primary. nikki haley campaigning hard in her home state. she took some time yesterday to ask for a moment of silence for the service members who died in that attack. nikki haley from yesterday. [video clip] >> as much as we love the pomp and the circumstance, we have to acknowledge the fact that as a military spouse, we lost three of our heroes today. i will tell you, the fact that we lost three, and dozens were wounded after 160 attacks on our men and women in the military, it is absolutely shameful. what we need to remember is those families need to be lifted up today. we need to lift up every one of those families who lost their loved ones and everyone of those

families whose loved ones have been injured in these attacks. please take a moment to lift them up in prayer. let's take a few seconds. amen. host: that was nikki haley in a south carolina yesterday. this is the lead editorial in today's wall street journal. the op-ed pages, the editorial board writing biden, iran, and three dead americans as the headline of their lead these. they write "everyone knows the real orchestrator of these attacks is iran but the president has put his anxieties about upsetting iran and risking escalation above his duty to defend u.s. troops abroad. it would have been more honest to withdraw troops from the region rather than consign them to catching drones. mr. biden has spent months

writing about a broader regional war without confronting the reality the u.s. is already in one. the result is americans are now dying." editorial board of the washington journal. edward in new york. mount vernon. democrat. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is my first time calling in. i listen to the program regularly and i impressed by the folks who are aware of the fact we need to be more educated about what is going on in the world. that to say i do not think the press or the media the supporting properly educating the american public. i just saw the piece about nikki haley -- i just heard the piece about nikki haley in a moment of silence. i just heard a caller that was

so proud of the fact that what he 6000 palestinians in gaza have been killed. if we had a moment of silence for those folks maybe we be able to listen to our conscious and relies we should be working on piece, and maybe the united nations might be the place to turn to. that is all i want to hear. thank you host:. line for independents, this is david out of new york. good morning. i am an iranian an citizen and i wanted to register my concern for the loss of american lives in particular that has to be dealt with. in the long run, to understand that the expansion of our role in the area has been futile for not only our own strategic interest in the u.s., but the

aspiration of the native people in the so-called middle east for quite a while. look at what we did in iraq and afghanistan. we did not yield anything for either. in the long run there has to be a fundamental paradigm shift from the u.s. and the so-called western allies to ensure the iranian people, who have been pro-american and pro-west for an -- and pro-western to be able to fulfill their yearnings for freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and modernization in the context of their own cultures, transparency and accountability. the current government has repeatedly failed in that country. we have a piece to them. it is about time that we demonstrate our strong solidarity with the people by

isolating a government that this morning summarily executed four innocent individuals and no one talks about it. host: how does the united states demonstrate solidarity with the iranian people against the government? when you say this needs to be dealt with in the short term, what do you mean? there are of congress calling for strikes inside iran itself. caller: so long as in the short run going after these satellite proxies in the region and sponsored ideologically and financially and otherwise by the current regime, as well as striking the heart and comatose brain of the regime, that is fine. the u.s. has to make every conceivable effort through action and not rhetoric to

distinguish and respect the yearning of the iranian people. if they go with a haphazard strike and bring amount again bringing pain and misery to people who been suffering by killing innocent people, of course that will backfire. we have to be very careful about that. in the long run trying to appease a regime that has been emboldened by our weaknesses and even if we were to go ahead and strike. then again, the outcome would be to embolden a total failed system of government for another 10 or 15 years. that is not go. host: this is carrie in tennessee. republican. this is terry.

i see it on the wall, the writing on the wall. if we do not get rid of biden he will get us into world war iii and we cannot get rid of him then. we have to do something because i am too old to go fight. a lot of these young people do not have the backbone. we will have to get rid of him. trump, i do not have to work when trump was in. now i am 69 and i have to go to work every day. i am not happy with biden. host: out of curiosity, why are you able to not work when trump was in? caller: everything wasn't as high. the gas is almost doubled. food has almost doubled. the rent has tripled.

i don't make a little more than $1500 a month for social security. i cannot make it. i have to work somewhere. host: thi te from the washington post today. "critics call for more forceful measures amid growing violence in the middle east." their wrap up of this attack on the u.s.-based known as tower 22 near the border of iraq and syria. the total of five u.s. troops have died in the middle east with israel's invasion of gaza. two navy seals were lost in an accident earlier this month following iranian components in yemen where militants target commercial vessels off the radiant peninsula.

-- off of the iranian peninsula. the other jumped into the strong waves to help. they were both declared dead days later following an expansive search. congresswoman marjorie taylor greene, one of the critics calling for more forceful response, and extensive tweet yesterday from the congresswoman. i will not read the whole thing. in part, she writes, "as a member of congress i demand to know why our troops are in jordan and what were our navy seals doing when they were killed. what is the authorization for use of military force? i have many more questions. her perspective war with iran simultaneously while texas set a standoff with the federal government at the border is unprecedented and dangerous. americans must recognize the biden administration has allowed nearly 2 million gotaways

helping of migrants and the breaking of immigration laws." concern over federal immigration laws is the main reason republicans in the house have filed impeachment articles against homeland security elian joe may orca's cash against the homeland security secretary. we will get into those in the next story in the washington journal. here's a segment from "the washington post, noting it is two articles of impeachment he will face from house republicans. this is jerry in north carolina. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning i am a veteran. he always bang the war drums and always want to draw blood.

we have a short memory. look at the boar we've been to. we say we have a slamdunk. they said it was a slamdunk. and we have this republicans, they are cowards. they are war hawks. that ialthey know. peace sometimes? the seed of we do not have to be in isr no way. that is part of e problem. why can't we plant the seed of host: pollen is in laurel, maryland. -- collin is in laurel,

maryland. caller: i'm a republican and a conservative and a maga. if we just stop israel from the bombing, the killing of men and women and children in gaza most of this will come down -- will calm down very quickly. i know 30,000 people and more are under the rubble. my fear is now will be listening to zionists. i love israel. who tell us to go ahead and start war with iran. it is israeli oppression to get america going one more time. host: this is john in brooklyn. democrat. good morning. go ahead. caller: i want to give a little history on trump.

the car companies was going group. insurance companies were going broke. obama took us out of a recession. trump destroyed it. when he left we were losing 80,000 jobs a month because of the virus. he did not believe in it. he destroyed the economy. host: bring us to middle east policy. caller: i'm coming right up to the middle east and trump. um russia, saying he does not believe american reports, do not believe america. trump left syria, and then trump said we do not need nato. he wanted to destroy nato. trump went to north korea. he said he is writing a love

letter to that guy over there. then he comes to america, saying we do not need the fbi, we do not need nato. he wants to destroy america. host: wrap it up for me. caller: everything trumps to the republicans have to believe it because he has a strong hold on them. trump will destroy america. we were headed for another recession. biden stop that recession. now we are recovering. trump -- afghanistan, when we pulled out of afghanistan, there was trump that laid down. he had two years to build it up. trump set a date to come out of afghanistan with iran. president obama had set up an inspection system. trump tore that inspection system up. host: that is john in brooklyn. 20 minutes left in the segment.

getting your reaction to the drone strike that killed three u.s. soldiers in jordan. phone lines for democrats, republicans, independents, and a special line for active and former members of the military. matt is a republican out of texas. caller: i want to tell you obama and biden both kissed up to the murdering killers from iran for years. you cannot keep kissing a cobra and expect not to get bit. obama and biden -- to me they are both traders. -- to me they are both traitors. god bless israel and the united states. when you cut me i bleed red, white, and blue. israel is doing the right thing. hamas, they recruit from the palestinian people in gaza.

they recruit them from right there. what does that tell you? the palestinian people allow them to stay in power for 17 years. they allowed hamas. god bless our troops. god bless israel. god bless the united states of america. i love both. some of these people need to start reading the bible and what it says in genesis in the bible about supporting israel. you turn your back on israel. israel is going to be ok because the lord god will protect them. he has protected them 2000 years. you keep staying and talking against israel, and i guarantee you'll have to meet your maker. host: that is matt in texas. back to peter baker's column in the new york times, u.s.

searches for ways to avenge categories in jordan without escalating a regional conflict. a little bit more from that article. "complicating mr. biden's decision is the possibility ramping up the fighting with iran could make it harder to wind down the fighting in ga za. " deal in which israel would halt its military campaign against hamas for two months in exchange for the release of nearly 100 hostages seized on october 7. the biden administration is trying to negotiate a separate agreement to avoid a conflict between israel and another iranian backed militia, hezbollah, based in lebanon. regional issues here and the ramifications of what a response would be on the mind of u.s. officials and plenty of members of congress. this is thomas in texas. independent.

you are next. caller: i have to tell the guy from tennessee, the kids that are out there fighting, those are kids. don't say that kids do not have a backbone. the ones that died were kids. anyway, trump trie to shut down the same base when he was in office. the military said no. that is why they got killed. as far as republicans bombing iran come if they do it all it will do is make the leader stronger by coalescing with them. if lindsey graham and everybody wants to go, give them an f-16, put them in there, and let them go bomb them. as far as marjorie taylor greene and the rest of those -- that does not make any sense, the policies they are making. if they want to do anything about the border sign the bill and get it over with. do not panic americans.

biden will take care of this. we do not want to spread the war. we do not want any more of our kids did. host: back to tennessee. line for current and former members of the military. manufacture consent. that is what i think about the continuing conflict going on in the middle east stop this is no accident. it was all by design. i could go back to the bush doctrine. herbert walker bush. host: you think the killing of three u.s. troops is a false flag operation? caller: i'm not saying it is a false flag operation. what i am saying is you walk tall and carry a big stick. for the military-industrial complex to continue to justify their budget to change it to

justify the colonialism attitude that is part of manifest destiny -- it is way deeper than this. this is all by design. for every hero you have to have a villain. since i have been alive, the united states, along with the nato allies and their partners, to control what is going on in the world they have to have a police force, ará military, unid nations, nato, imf. w.h.o., cfr. this is all by design. host: this is bruce in new york. democrat. good morning. caller: first of all, hats off to the men and women who are on the frontline protecting our

country and god bless our troops . it goes without saying. our prayers are out across the country for these three that have lost their lives in the service of the country. outside of the military side of this, we have to assume this is a trigger, looking for more deaths, more reckless engagement. frankly, we have a lot of calls coming in who are just reactionary party politics people who do not knremember whr did and when republicans did arms for hostages, the iranians do not forget that. they know they can disrupt our political system and get us to sabotage our own leader, our own president, our real president come in to create such dissension in this country we do not know what we are doing. i would say one of the primary things we should be doing is

uniting, not dividing. quit playing party politics. i am surprised c-span is so quickly jumping on this before we have full information about what is really going on. i think we should see this through and i am certain there will be strategic strikes to make sure there is payback for this and for those men, and women. whoever was heard there. that is bruce in new york. hakeem jeffries, his statement yey. "heartbrokennd outraged by the depth of three u.s. service members and the wounding of others during the horrific terrorist attack in the middle east. we are praying hard. every malignant actor involved must be ld responsible." this is mike rogers.

"three american servicemembers made t uimate sacrifice. i am praying f tm and all of the family members injuredn the heinous attack. it is lo pt time for the biden administration to hold the terrorist in their exemist proxies responsible for the attacks they carried ke rogers, republican from alabama. republican michael mccaul, the chairman at the house n relations committee saying iran's proxies have launched 150 atcks on u.s.ros and the iran back houthi attacks, global y israel. american -- the biden administration's failed policy has destroyed our determinants t allies in the middle east. we need a major reset to protect our national security interests and restore deterrence. this is don out of south carolina. independent. good morning.

caller: good morning. i want to give my condolences to the families of those three that were killed. being a mother of united states marine and given this country over 100 years of service for my family gives me the right to say what i need to say right now. i cannot believe that joe biden is sitting in that office. you can tell he is not right in the head. i do not know how he got there, but he has not made a constant decision since the day he got there. is that the best we can do for this country? if it is we are in serious trouble. i note that man is not the best.

i do not know how he can make a decision to order anything. to be a commander in chief he needs to make a conscience commitment to a sentence. i've not understood one thing he has said since he has been in office. like i said, my baby is united states marines. if this is the best we can do, we are in serious trouble. if people do not start getting along better in this country and coming together and showing support for each other and standing up and taking control over this country, we will lose it. that is all i have to say right now. host: about 10 minutes left in this segment. call in on that room strike that killed three u.s. soldiers in jordan. out of arkansas, republican, good morning. caller: i just want to remember how bad i ran hates america and

how many terrorist organizations they support. they call it the big satan. i remember the plo in 1985. a cruise ship was hijacked by yasser arafat and the plo and they gathered up passports, shuffle them until they found an american jew celebrating his 36th wedding anniversary and they push that man off the boat in his wheelchair. that is what iran-backed there is him does. this goes back to 1985 -- that is what iran backed terrorism does. this goes back to 1985. iran has backed so many proxies. i thought history might clarify the situation. host: this is eric in maryland.

line for current and former military. caller: thank you for taking my call. condolences to the servicemembers and their families. i agree with some of the previous colors on the rush to go into a fight. in this political seasonattackit is being responsible for these attacks on our troops. i want to remind folks that the former president has made disparaging remarks about senator john mccain's service for being captured and tortured. he has also called did troops suckers and losers. he did not want to see any disfigured service members at

any ceremonies. he also threatened the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff with execution, calling him a traitor. that is their standardbearer. an insurrectionist and a rapist. dave in florida. caller: think the last caller for bringing reality into the conversation after the crackpots and the religiously insane crazies who would rack the american flag in the bible together and worship israel more than they do the united states. apparently -- one of the callers glossed over the part in the bible that mentions do unto others as you would have them do unto you. in 1948, the allies after world war ii dropped about 2 million

eastern european refugees into an area in the middle east about the size of delaware. these are the same people who refuse to acknowledge some of these facts whose hair is on fire when a few mexicans come across the border in arizona and texas. anytime you have one group that refuses to concede the same rights and privileges to others they take for granted for themselves, you're going to have an ugly conflict, which is exactly what we have with israel and the palestinians in the middle east, now america is in over our eyeballs. host: another david out of louisiana. republican. good morning. caller: i was a career air force. i am an extra republican.

i spent a lot of time in that part of the world. at the working level i've dealt with israelis, palestinians, arabs, and iranians. all are basically decent people trying to get along in the world like all of us. it is a -- it is the political types that are screwing things up. we could plaster that place with cluster bombs, which as the military makes us feeloo that is not going to solve ything. biden is trying to stabilizth world and develop better allians. that is not very gus. you did not get any credit for it all of that sounds good. host: what you say to folks who feel like the world is not a stable place right now? caller: it is a terrifically

unstable place. blasting everybody with firebombs is not going to do any good. that is all i have got. thank you. host: just a few minutes left, try to get to as many of your calls as we can. this is alexander in d.c.. that line for current and former members of the military. caller: i will be quick. my thoughts go out to the veterans who were killed. i do not know if they were men or women but they are heroes.tha condemnation of jordan. the so-called king of jordan and the queen of jordan condemned the united states publicly. if you have a problem with u.s. government do it one-on-one with u.s. president and stop all of the hatemongering and criticism of the u.s.. especially if your country and your government is totally dependent for military statistics.

there has to be some kind of dialogue when you're getting your protection from the u.s. military. host: u.s. troops have long been in jordan. some 3000 american troops are typically stationed across the country of jordan. caller: jordan is also a haven for terrorism. the same time the king and queen are criticizing the united states you're telling palestinian refugees you cannot come here. which is it? you cannot have it both ways. one more thing. if you want to lift up the people, the veterans families whar killed, keep donald trump as far away as possible because he has a history of calling wounded and killed veterans suckers and losers. that is my comment. host: urge in ohio.

independent -- george in ohio. independent. caller: this is just a predicate to what is happening. by april or may we will be in world war iii. my brother served in vietnam. 50,000 america■kíns died in that war. soldiers. now we are buying furniture from vietnam. we do the same thing with china. they are communist. biden is nothing but a traitor. he should be impeached. host: one last call from new jersey. democrat. good morning. caller: i am listening to all of this and i think i can tell you what is really going on. despite biden telling everybody he does not want to enlarge the war, i believe a group of

neocons in the pentagon have decided it is time for war with iran. you will hear more and more american troops being killed, maybe a ship or something, and at some point we will launch an attack on iran. i am figuring it will happen sometime before the summer. right now the iranians have missiles that can travel 1200 miles. that is a range that is enough to let them hit targets in eastern europe and in israel. they are only three months away from developing a battlefield ready atomic weapon. once that happens, once they detonate the first a-bomb, that changes the scenario completely. i believe they want to have that war with iran and do a regime change there and knock out a nuclear program they have now.

they will not wait. this work could occur in the next three months. that is all i have to say. host: that is our last caller for the segment of "washington journal." plenty to talk about, including a preview of a busy week on capitol hill. we'll be joined by mychael schnell, reporter for "the hill." at a later, deep dive into the challenges facing the social security program with charles blahous of george mason university. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> when nigel hamilton was a student at cambridge university in great britain, he stayed for a brief time with winston and

liddy churchill at their home at chartwell in kent. he also spent hours talking about world war ii after the war of course with field marshal montgomery. these experiences led to a life and an author about history. he first moved to the united states in 1988 and is based in the boston, massachusetts area and books include the bestseller jfk, reckless youth, two volumes on president bill clinton and a trilogy on ftr about his role as commander-in-chief of world war ii from 1941-nord team 45. nigel hamilton is now an american citizen. >> nigel hamilton on this epis book notes plus. it's available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you ur podcasts. ♪ >>since

-- >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors, to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat of how issues are debated and decided. with no interruption and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ ■p>> if you ever miss any of our covers, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. the timeline makes it easy to get an idea what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few

minutes on c-span's points of interest. announcer: a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. when citizens are truly informed, our republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capitol, to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ "washington journal" continues. host: on monday when congress is in session, we like to look at the week ahead in washington. we are joined by a congressional reporter from the hill newspaper. we've seen these statements from members of congress in the wake of this attack in jordan yesterday that killed three american service members.

the senate doesn't come back until tomorrow and you will be heading up to capitol hill so what are your expectations? will there be hearings this week on this? what will you be looking for when you start your job today? >> guest: guest: there will be conversations about it and lawmakers will be asked to comment on the tragedy that happened over the weekend. in terms of hearings, it's up in the air. we are seeing statements from lawmakers right now expecting condolences to the families of the three service members. there will be a lot of questions of what the u.s. response looks like also in terms of oversight powers and looking into what happened. there are no firm plans right now on what comes next in terms of how the reaction is on capitol hill but i expect there will be a lot of conversation. host: just to add to the mix, an important mix -- an important week for the border deal. where does that deal stand right now? guest: we are at the same place we were at the beginning of last week in the sense the top lawmakers and negotiates is

saying this could be the week that we finally get moving on this border security deal. we haven't seen that yet and there is no firm answer but over the weekend, top negotiators were saying they are putting the finishing touches on his bipartisan border deal which has been in the works for months and they say texas chris murphy came out this week saying this could hit that senate floor. they say this is one of the key sticking points in recent weeks and still causing issues for the groups so not everything is buttoned up yet but top lawmakers expecting some optimism. we will expect lawmakers will ask for significant time to parse through the details. we haven't seen a package like this in decades. lawmakers will want their due diligence to parse through the specifics. host: we will go through the

text when it comes out. what is most likely in this deal so far? guest: chris murphy gave a preview yesterday during one of the sunday show saying the president would have the authority to shut down the border if crossings between ports of entry reached " catastrophically high levels." that was chris murphy's language and that's where we saw the president say that if he was given this power to shut down the border immediately, that got concern from some individuals. i think that's with this key piece of the deal is. chris murphy says the president would have that authority and it would reform asylum for some of the folks coming into the u.s. those are some of the details that chris murphy has released. both the top negotiators, langford and murphy say there has been a lot of leaks in the process which happens on capitol hill especially when you're

looking -- working on something that so high-stakes. they say don't listen to the leaks, follow the text. host: this is the headline -- some folks see this as more of a political football. talk through some of that process you are watching and who the main players are. guest: the border has always been a politically polarizing matter. that's why we haven't seen substantial border security or reforms in decades because it doubles lawmakers every time they bring it up area it just the politicization of this issue will be in overdrive because we are in an election year area the primary caucus season is underway in the general one is around one or,, everything in washington will be politicized but voters and americans are interested in the border and immigration reform. there was a poll just this month from harvard that found that

immigration is now the top issue to voters. when they were asked which your highest concern in the election, 35 percent said immigration and 32% said inflation. we are now talking about the possibility of a bipartisan deal on what is the issue most salient among voters. you asked about the main players. former president trump would top that list. he has railed against these negotiations and encouraged lawmakers and social republicans not to accept any border deal unless it's perfect and they get everything they want. when you have a bipartisan deal on capitol hill especially dealing with the senate which needs 60 votes so by nature needs to be bipartisan, you will never get everything you want. there will be some give and take from both sides of the aisle so donald trump to manning's perfect will not happen. democrats say we you been

hammering us on the border for months and democrats are finally coming to the table. but democrats are saying now is that you will not go through these negotiations because you want the president, the former president to campaign on this issue of immigration and the border. democrats are saying that republicans don't want to hand president biden a win which would help them in the polls. it would take away a chunk of an issue that the president wants to campaign on. he wants to campaign on immigration so that's the situation where we are. immigration reform was always going to be difficult and border security was always going to be a heavy lift and this makes it entirely more difficult. host: this is all happening at a time when the man in charge of the border, the homeland security secretary, is facing impeachment. what to those articles, what will he be impeached on? guest: in the senate, you have

bipartisan negotiators working with the biden administration. michael just mayorkas has been part of the talks and they are trying to come to a consensus on the border security. on the house side, republicans are taking a crucial step this week toward impeaching the border security chief. it's a fastening way both sides of the capital are addressing this politically charged situation. on tuesday, we will see a markup in the house homeland security commission on two articles of impeachment against mayorkas accusing him of willful and systemic review will to -- refusal to comply with the law. the second is breach of trust, accusing him of not participating in the investigation and things of that nature. we will see a markup and a vote in the homeland security committee tuesday if that is successful in the articles are advanced out of committee, we will see a vote in the house floor and speaker mike johnson in a letter last week s possibla

necessary problem, suggesting it's a necessary priority so it's possible within the next days orlla handwrote -- alejandro mayorkas impeach. host: the house will be in at noon today. we are taking your phone calls as we take a look at the week ahead in washington. democrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans (202) 748-8001s, independent (202) 748-8002. we still don't have a fiscal 2024 plan and this is the time of year when congress is usually planning for the next year fiscal budget. what is the latest so remind us where we are on deadlines for that funding resolution. guest: the next government funding deadline because we talk

two separa resolutions passed this month. march 1 is the next which will be for part of the government report for praise you -- for for appropriations bill rest will be march 8. in the government funding process, there was a slight development over the weekend. appropriators announced allocations for each of those 12 appropriations bills. it's called 302b that's for nerds. host: we like nerds. guest: it was lofty but significant because while we have the top line deal then go shaders announced come appropriate is need to know how much they had for each appropriations bill and they now have that so they can start parsing through the details to figure out which programs and which department get how much money. we could see some boats on these appropriations on the floor because march 1 and march 8 may seem far away but in congress, that creeps up pretty quickly. host: let's take some calls, bob in palm coast, florida,

republican. your first. are you with us? then we will go to gordon in laramie, wyoming, independent area caller: good morning. thanks for your service with c-span. i think i have a good border solution. there should be places along the border to vet migrants, immigrants similar to ellis island but a nicer infrastructure, several places along the border maybe even a dozen. because we have a later shortage in this country, and social security will run out of money until you get new citizens coming in, it will help social security. that's all i've got. i will take your answer off the phone, thank you. host: we will have about a 45

minutes discussion on the future of social security in our 9:00 a.m. eastern hour on the "washington journal." guest: these negotiations have been pretty tightlipped. we haven't seen too many leaks but when we've seen them, the new oceana is quickly say don't listen to what's leaking, don't listen to what's being reported because the devil is in the details when we talk about these things so politically charged. i think we are all waiting and that's been one of the most difficult parts of these negotiations. it's waiting for specifics and we've seen lawmakers get frustrated with this saying they want to know what's in the bill. we've heard all of this huff and puff about the border security deal in the former president is getting involved in saying you should vote against it but lawmakers want to know what's in it and then we will take the next step forward. host: this is from the hill newspaper --

guest: you see it right there, republicans are taking a lot of heat for this and james lankford has said time and time again, let the former president read this bill. let him figure out what's in it and then he can decide for himself saying that this prejudging and talking about leaks and reports is not helpful. you can see that donald trump is still the leader in the face of the republican party so has a massive amount of support on the ground. we saw that in iowa and new hampshire locking down those races qukly. he's encouraging republicans not to support this emerging border deal and encouraging republicans to demand everything or nothing. you will see at home and on the ground, a lot of supporters of

the former president get frustrated with the folks were supporting this. the fact that james lankford received his reviews at home, he has been the central republican figure so if anybody it would be him but a pretty stunning situation and fallout, the fact that the man leading border security negotiations is getting democrats to cave on some of their key things and put things on the table they never would have spoken about previously. james lankford has been the leading republican for this negotiation. it shows the pole that john --that donald trump has in the host: party. host:what about senator murphy? guest: it was a question asked earlier. they've been consensus builderse in the gun safety bill passed recently. they have worked across the isle before and they are now taking on one of their biggest challenges. kyrsten sinema is the third negotiator from arizona who is known for her work across the aisle.

these are bipartisan negotiators who can work across the aisle together. host: on the line for democrats, tennessee, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what your question or comment? caller: my comment is i believe that as they come up across the border, you should have a place for them to go to and families, people that have family in the united states already should be able to come in first but the family needs to come to the border and pick them up and the ones -- the next ones are the children coming in they are so much under age. the first up they make is to a medical clinic where doctors are available at the border. and they make sure they are healthy. once they are healthy, you find

some way to connect them and as many people in the united states who would be willing to take them in to help them get started. just work down the line like that. everyone goes through a medical checkup first to make sure they are not bringing more diseases in. host: we will talk about that process of migrants across the border and some of the biggest concerns and what this bill might do to provide the resources and do some of what the callers talking about. host: we don't know the specifics in the bill. what i named off the top, giving the president the ability to shut down the border, silent reform and speeding up work permits us all that we know that's concrete. in terms of what the process would be and changing that process for how migrants are processed and brought to the united states, that may be part of the legislation but we just

don't know this might. host: let me get into the partisan bill that could help unlock fontseas for ukraine and israel. michael on twitter says -- guest: it's a good question. it does not have to buy any means but we saw this when the present first rolled out his national of over $100 billion in aid for ukraine and israel and indo pacific allies and then there was money for border security. essentially republics have said, they've grown to be more skeptical of this continuous support to ukraine, number of conservative republicans said we are not going to consider aid for ukraine unless it's paired with border security, sing the national security is u.s. security and we first need to deal with the situation at the southern border before we go out and help one of our allies overseas.

top republicans like mitch mcconnell was one of the foremost if not the foremost advocate for ukraine on capitol hill said fine, this is what we will do. this is how the senate bipartisan group came together to hash out details and come to an agreement on border security and it was meant to unlock aid for ukraine. it doesn't have to be linked to one another but this was a demand that republicans have made which is why there's been a lot of questions about why republicans are now being skeptical of the bill and criticizing it. this is what they requested as art of ukraine. we can get into the conversation about ukraine aiden how there aree are not giving the border security deal look because they don't want to advance it. it's become a very political mess. host: about 10 minutes left with michael hill. -- michael schnell. i want to ask about one of your

stories, elise stefanik caesar's stock rise and trumps deep stakes. guest: this was fun to write. after the former president one iowa and new hampshire, they say he's on track to be the nominee and nikki haley is sticking in the race but she has an uphill climb which is an understatement. a lot of folks are asking who will join the former resident on this presidential ticket. we had that public split with vice president mike pence as his running mate after the 23 presidential election. her before years, we have this conversation in one of washington's favorite games to players who will join trump on the ticket and one name that's been floated is elise stefanik. she's been a strong defender and ally of the former president on capitol hill, defending him through his legal entanglements. she spearheaded a number of legal filings supporting the

former president and taking aim at some of the individuals investigating him. she introduced a resolution to expunge some impeachment filings on the january 6 right last year. she's been one of his foremost offenders in theabout her beings kicked into high gear when she was on the campaign trail for him and new hampshire. for a lot of folks in the trump circle, is she a contender and what would she bring and the consensus is that she is close the former president and he sees her as a very loyal supporter and defender on capitol hill. there are questions about pros and cons you could bring to the ticket. she is a woman with many folk say the former president needs a woman on the ticket and she's younger which is a nice contrast area former president age has come under scrutiny in this cycle but there is also a question about electoral strategy. she comes from new york which is a democratic fashion and will not help trump in the race and

there's been some questions about whether she would maybe outshine the former president. she's been seen as a rising star in the other thing i will know is that she had a pretty dramatic transformation in 2019. she is to be a moderate on capitol hill and then around the time of trump's first impeachment, she made a dramatic shift from moderate to maga. then she accelerated that. host: was there a specific moment or incident that was the catalyst for that shift? guest: it really was during the first impeachment. that was involving accusations that the former president leveraged on joe biden for aiding ukraine and the famous phone call with ukrainian president and it was during the impeachment hearings we started hearing from elise stefanik more and seeing her more. after that, she became a household name on the national stage and then she's taken that

title and that symbolism and run with it. she become one of the former president's fiercest offenders and has been noticed by the former president for that. nbc news reported that during a dinner at mar-a-lago last month, trump called her a killer. she also got a lot of public praise for her questioning of those three university presidents about anti-semitism on campus which led to two of the president stepping down when they wouldn't say genocide was problematic on their campuses. she's been a lot in the press lately for her time with trump and at the hearing and her name is very much being floated in these talks. host: this is jason, independent out of alabama, good morning. caller: good morning. couple of comments. it's hard for the republicans to have a good conversation about immigration or negotiating a deal for the past eight years.

they spent their time feeding their base a consistent diet of fear and hate for illegal and legal immigrants. as far as what's happening in texas on the border, if i was joe biden, i would call his bluff. i would defund the national guard. i would diss honorably any national guard soldiers that defies the chain of command to do anything unconstitutional. if governor abbott wants to pick up the health care costs and personal cost of those people and make them texas rangers or whatever, they can do that. i don't think biden can allow abbott and the 25 other governors in the lone star state to determine that they will unconstitutionally define what goes on at the border. host: we will take that point.

what about the state of texas versus the federal government on the border? guest: it's significant we saw leader johnson leader group of more than 60 house republicans to eagle pass, texas at the beginning of the year which is seen as a way that house republicans were kicking off the year with a full court press at the southern border and holding a press conference there and doing -- and doing tours. republicans came back to capitol hill and spoke about their experiences and after that, we saw this acceleration in the process to impeach mayorkas during the impeachment hearings and the expectation there would be a markup and over the weekend, the unveiling of these articles. this week, we'll see come to fruition with that markup an initial boat on the homeland security commission. this situation happening in texas and the trip that house republicans took their has been a key focus of this congress. republicans have been doing this full court press on the border. immigration is now the key top

issue among voters so we will see republicans capitalize on that. host: this is the on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i just wanted to speak to your guest and say something here. i'm concerned about what's going on in the united states. trump has encouraged all the republicans to call the border open so it will make biden look bad and it will allow him to get an office. he will not get there in people need to understand this man is causing chaos and problems for this country and what about the papers he had that he gave to pruden and kim jong-un in north korea and china? all those papers that were never disclosed so they would

understand what trump is trying to do. host: she comes back to the political value of a border fight. guest: which has become the central question and conversation. democrats ever but -- accused republicans of backing away from these negotiations and saying they won't accept anything because they don't want to hand the president a win in election year. passing legislation that addresses the border would be significant for both sides of the aisle because we haven't seen that happen in decades. democrats right now are accusing republicans of not wanting to hand the president that issue and it comes back to the fact that former president trump wants to center his campaign around immigration. it's been something that republicans have been talking about a lot recently over recent months. by addressing the situation at the border through legislation, it would take away a talking point from the former president and democrats are now accusing republicans of putting politics

but they are close to a final deal. host: i want to ask you about this story from last week you wrote. guest: yes, congressman from maryland is hanging up his hat after 11 terms in the house. he's been in the house for several years and this is part of the narrative we've seen in congress about this influx of law makers leaving congress. i think he's the 44th house member to announce they are leaving congress in this congress. he's either seeking higher office or to just retire from public office. it comes as we are in the middle of one of the more unproductive congress is we've seen in a while. last year, we saw a few bills being passed maybe around 20. we did see two different speakers in the motion to vacate

into potential government shutdowns. we are on the brink of these potential first ever economic defaults. there was a lot of drama in the last year and this congress but not a lot of lawmaking. i'm seeing a lot of lawmakers leave congress maybe because they are tired of this. we are seeing less legislating and more politics and folks are saying i'm done with this, i've had enough. host: covering it all for the hill newspaper is michael schnell at the hill.com. it's easy enough to find at twitter. thanks so much for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: coming up in 45 minutes, a discussion on the 8=future of social security we will be joined by charles blauhaus for that discussion but up first, it's our open forum, any public policy or political issue you want to talk about, the phone lines are open to do so with the numbers on your screen. call in now and we will get to

those calls after the break. ♪ >> for c-span's voice is 2024, we are asking voters across the country, what issue is most important to you in the selection and why. >> the most important issue this season is immigration. >> the deficit. >> i think homelessness is an issue that we need to address. >> we invite you to share your voice by going to our website, c-span.org/campaign 2024 and select the record your voice to an recorded video telling your issue and why. c-span voices 2024, be a part of the conversation. ♪ >> friday nights, wash c-span's 2024 campaign trail, weekly round up of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover where the

candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising dating campaign as. watch can't -- campaign 2024 trail friday nights at 7 p.m. eastern. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of c-span's podcasted feature nonfiction books in one place so you can discover new authors and ideas. each week, we make it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with the clea claimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events and culture from our signature program about books, afterwords, book notes plus and q&a.

listen today and you can find the feed and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobil video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is our online store, browse to relate his collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues.. host: it's that time in our program where we let you lead the program in open forum with any political issue you want to talk about, democrats, republicans and independents as usual. here's where we aren't capitol

hill today -- the house is in at noon eastern in the senate doesn't return until tomorrow but on the house side today, a hearing by officials from the veterans affairs department on data privacy and the use of artificial intelligence. you can wash the subcommittee hearing live at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2 and also on c-span.org and on c-span now. at 1 p.m. eastern time, after chris evans speak about their video civic engagement platform called a starting point, their efforts to engage younger americans and first-time voters for the current election season, that's taking place at the national press club today and you can watch at 1 p.m. eastern here on c-span, c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. now your phone calls in open forum on until about quarter past 9:00 a.m. eastern so go

ahead and call in and we will get to his many of your calls as we can. sophia is up first in manhattan, independent area good morning. we will work on sophia as we go to gary in pennsylvania next. are you with us? caller: yeah, i'good morning, id just like to say that i've been hearing [no audio] host: the phone lines are back up and running, i'm not sure were gary went but we will get back to it, democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans, (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002. it's open for now in any public policy or political issue want to talk about and hopefully gary will come back, sorry about that.

this is john in memphis in the meantime, democrat. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i was calling to let the people know that everybody that associates themselves with donald trump that messed up their career and i would advise them not to take part with trump because he is injurious to the health of their family and the nation, thank you area. host: now we will try sophia in manhattan, democrat. caller: good morning, john. host: go ahead, what's on your mind and turned and your tv if you don't mind? caller: it's my first time. i hung up the phone and i put it back. thank you, this is a first time that i'm going to complain.

i never liked to complain about c-span. you guys have been doing a great job to us. everything we ask you do a service for us. host: we are happy to take complaints or constructive criticism. what would you like us to do better? caller: i don't like anyone to complain about the host. if you don't like the subject, if you don't like the host, just change the channel. now, i shouldn't say that to you. i am comfortable with you and greta. pedro is really getting bad. something's not right with him. host: i've known pedro a long time and he is a great host and i've learned a lot about posting from him. he sits right next to me at our desks around the corner.

i promise you, he's a professional does this job well. i will stick up for pedro and all of our hosts. i hope you keep watching and thank you for the call. this is kareem and georgetown, maryland, republican. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am doing well. caller: regarding immigration, i find it problematic. both parties know very well that a comprehensive immigration reform bill will never pass. instead of focusing on one issue at a time whether it's border security or it's a pathway to citizenship, we will not agree on the entire bill at the same time. it's very concerning because these are intelligent people we've elected. it's divisive and we know it's divisive. it's harmful and the rhetoric around it is so dangerous and we

see it every day. i don't to take too much time but the short version is we know it's divisive and we know we will not agree on the entire thing at the same time. each side has -- acts as if the only reason we are blocking it and there are tons of examples. host: there is no grand bargain that can be had but are you saying that there are some things we can agree on and take that one piece at a time? we are often from viewers about why these -- why they make these large bills and why can't they do smaller bills with upper down boats? caller: that's exactly it. if we take one issue at a time or more agents on the border, there is generally agreement out of that but what ends up happening is we have these large comprehensive bills were both parties, depending on when the issue is occurring will try to attack other requirements to it. there are things related to

ukraine and there are things related where you can't have a pathway to citizenship. whichever side of the isle you were on, that's oh k as long as we have an understanding that we've elected these politicians and they are aware we will not be able to agree on these bills. the politicalit's not in the ine american people. ultimately, this is about who we are electing. we complain about what's going on but then we also elect the same type of rhetoric regardless of the type of politician that says it. host: this is devaris athens, georgia, independent, good morning. caller: how much do i love c-span? your tie is incredible. i won't waste too much time with the pleasantries let's get straight into it area america

first. it consists of three things, the border, the debt and no forever wars. anyone who is against these fundamental matters are either anti-american or they are useful individuals to be used to reach a goal. this border crisis iscan sovere. citizenship has to be considered valuable to the citizens. people are not coming here to be nefarious, they're coming here to get a piece of this wonderful experience called america. thank you so■. much and i look forward to 2020 for. it's been great. anything for me? host: we will talk to you again in about a month. this is randy from broken arrow, oklahoma, line for democrats,

good morning. caller: good morning, god bless america. host: what's on your mind this morning? caller: we've had 8 million people come into this country, we don't know who they are in we don't know where they are. maybe 99% of them are great people that just want to come like the last guy said and they want to come to the greatest country in the world and prosper. the 1% of the 8 million people, they can do october 7 for the rest of the year probably. what's going to happen? what's going to happen when terrorist attacks come to this country? what's going to happen? is it going to be donald trump oryza joe biden? host: that's randy in oklahoma.

democrats republicans and independents, on the lines. let's turn to campaign 2024 and we are joined by joseph bustos from the state newspaper out of columbia, south carolina. good morning and thank you for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: the democratic primary will take place this saturday in south carolina. we saw president biden was in south carolina yesterday. where did he go and what has been the presence of the biden campaign in south carolina compared to those who are working the primary? guest: this past weekend he came to columbia and spoke at the first of the nation celebration at a dinner put on by the state party. he also stopped by a barbershop and went to a church on sunday.

he has been doing those efforts. he's trying to make the same splash he did before the primary. a congressman was in town and he was speaking to small groups to get as many as people as possible. host: south carolina has not voted democrat since jimmy carter i believe. the president saying there is a chance south carolina could flip blue this cycle? what has been the message? guest: the messaging has been democrats tried to get through the democratic primary. south carolina was moved up to the leadoff spot as a nod to black voters, rural voters and southern voters. it's a state that compelled president biden in 2023 after he lost in iowa and new hampshire and nevada. it's meant to show more diversity in the electorate to

highlight the voters that helped him get to the presidency. host: joe biden will actually be on the ballot unlike new hampshire. what do we expect on saturday? guest: the latest polling done in early january by emerson college has joe biden with 69% of democratic voters in the state. 22% are undecided. president biden is one of the favorites to win the primary and dean phillips this past weekend was lowering his expectations and raising biden expectations by telling me he expected biden to get 95% of the vote in the primary. we will see what happens. it's easier when you are on the ballot and not a write in candidate for a sitting president but we will see how much he gets. host: the republican primary is february 24 which is three weeks after the democratic primary.

what does the polling show they are and how far does nikki haley trail donald trump? guest: the former governor south carolina nikki haley is coming back to her home state and she's hoping for a big bounce out of south carolina but donald trump is very popular in south carolina and the latest polling at nikki haley trailing by 29 points. we haven't seen any polling in south carolina or any public polling since early january. we will see what has changed if anything we will see if she's moved up or of trump is lost support. hopefully, we will have some polling in the next few days, maybe this week. host: what kind of bid is nikki haley making it or his state at a time when some say after iowa and new hampshire, it's time for her to step out of the race? guest: her campaign tells me they don't have any shortage of

resources. they have a $4 million ad buy on the day of the republican primary election. she is campaigning and was here the day after she was in north charleston the day after the new hampshire primary. she spent this weekend campaigning in republican hotspots in the state, going first to the upstate area and going to the myrtle beach area yesterday. she has been on the ground. we've seen advertisements for doorknocking for nikki haley and she has support from her super pac and the american prosperity super pac that is supporting nikki haley. host: and support from congressman ralph norman and that's about it when it comes to republicans in south carolina delegation. what's the impact of most of the delegation's of -- endorsing donald trump?

guest: you find the establishment of the party sees trump is the favorite and they are rallying around him. somets we saw were senator tim scott endorsing donald trump before the new hampshire primary and then it's a congresswoman nancy mace on the sidelines until recently and congressman chuck duncan said he did not plan to endorse before the primary. they are all now backing trump area it's a sign the establishment things trump is the presumptive nominee and they want to be on his team before this key primary. host: you're covering it for the state newspaper. what is your most anticipated event in the republican primary coming up most anticipated event in the democratic primary? guest: on the democratic primary, we will see what the turnout is like, how many people actually show up to vote. south carolina, you don't have

-- you have a choice and you can vote one party or another so we will see how they decide to vote in the democratic party and we get a few more people voting in republican party, than what's normally expected, if there are two truly competitive primers going on, i think that will be key to see independent voters and democratic voters as to how many will jump into the republican primary even though i don't believe or the republican chairman doesn't believe it would be enough to sway the result one way or another. i'm interested to see how many crossover. if they have some influence over what happens on the republican side. host: in the coming weeks, it would be a good week to get a subscription to the state newspaper out of columbia, south carolina.

thank you so much for your time this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: back to your phone calls an open forum. any political issue you want to talk about, knows the time. illinois, republican, good morning. caller: my name is gary baker and we need an adult place but people have said it's going to bankrupt the country. my kid has no place to go. they had them locked up during the pandemic and they wouldn't let them out. they said they had -- it was hard to get help to even take them for a walk. we need an adult place for autism kids. host: how old is your child? guest: 21. he needs adult placements. also for handicapped kids that

are in homes like in springfield they are getting placed in for care long-term. host: what are your options right now? they are trying everything but it keeps them locked down for three years and they had no funding enough to develop new ones or what they will do. they've kept them locked down so much, it's hard to handle. at 19, i was working on the farm doing stuff. they need something to do but they have an adults -- an adult autism center in champaign, illinois. then he programs to help them get out and work. ding for the wall has been funded by congress by press -- bypass presence in the congress. they complain about the law.

kamala harris that she wants to be president but i saw her speech the other day. she spoke better, biden never did but she was into abortion so we end up getting rid of eric kids and bring other kids into do work. but we don' and other people, other long-term placement for them. host: thank you for sharing your story. this is moses next in florida, independent, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you, thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of questions for you in regards to immigration. don't expose any bias by cutting me out prematurely. host: go ahead with your

comment. caller:caller: i have a question. who enacted the 97 executive upon being president? host: are these questions for viewers or what your point? caller: it's for you. host: i'm assuming you're referring to joe biden and his executive actions? caller: right, his first day in office, 97 executive orders to undo everything. he put back catch and release and title 42 come he went after. in other words, the democrats create the crisis and then try to convince americans they have the answers or solutions for crisis they created. another question is, where is

the media? where's the mainstream media on the border? host: where do you think the mainstream media is? caller: you tell me. when trump was in office, they were at the border every day talking about kids in cages and you don't see the media now. there are 100 times more people coming in under the -- then under the trump presidency. where is the media, you don't see them. the only one covering it is fox. host: that's moses in florida. to california, sean, line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning, john. i would like to address gary from illinois. i'm sorry your family is going through what you're going through. i work in the field. he is correct there. we don't -- most definitely need more resources in our health

care, particularly our development of delay or in the mental health field. that something needs to be done immediately and i'm sorry you're going through that. host: i don't know the situation illinois but you work in the field in california? caller: yes, sir. host: what would be the options for a family like gary's if they lived in california? caller: in california, we have regional centers and he's looking for permanent placement. one big issue we are having is pretty much around the country. it's available homes to provide that quality care especially based toward his son's disability and any other limitations. people need to be trained to be able to work with his son. that's a big issue we are having

in this country. we need to put more money into the homes. we need to open more homes to where he and other families that are able to have families can go there. it sounds like he is elderly. excuse me if i'm being biased. we do have a big populations where the children stay home with their families and they are actually getting old. they are concerned about where are the loved ones? host: for those type of regional centers you talk about, is that through social security disability insurance or do families pay out-of-pocket for that? do you know how that works? caller: for his son that has autism, he would fall under rehabilitation in california, i'm sorry, under a regional center.

they provide services to different populations, specific populations like autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy and it's one more. i'm sorry, i forgot. those services we do provide to that population. also, we have a family health agency that does placement for children that are under age. we serve early start transition adults and seniors. i always say we go from zero to passing under specifically those disabilities. any disabilities outside of that would go through the county. regional is funded by the department of developmental services under the state of california. that provides for a regional center that will provide those

day program services and would also provide the home services. i think i will stay on this instead of my comment. host: you work on this issue and what was your role? caller: i actually started, i have two family members that have autism and i lost one or eight years old and the other one is in a dealt who went through the entire program. you have to have that have a lot of family support. ice -- i came out of high school working with the population. i work for nine years at the community college with disabled services and i went to college and got my degrees and i have a masters in rehabilitation counseling, criminal justice degree i've been working for the region for five years and 3.5 years prior and i work at a

director, i've worked as a case manager now i've moved into quality assurance to make sure our programs are kept up in quality standards. host: i'm glad you called in. you wanted to make one more point, go ahead. caller: ok, my quick point -- i me real big person about women's rights. i was born in 1965 and i think no one should be left out of women's rights. remember back in the day, i was raised in compton in 1965 and i remember when reagan came up with the amnesty but a lot of us didn't like that. however he felt what was best for the country at that time and he closed down the border and he promised no more amnesty we had that immigration visa and

e-verify. we need to go back to that. my main comment is please, support -- men, support is when it comes to women's rights. so when it comes to your rights, we will support you. have a blessed day. host: it's just about 9:00 a.m. eastern and about one hour left on "washington journal." we will have a discussion on the social security in our final 45 minutes this morning. two of the programs to make you aware of today, it is the prime minister of qatar who is joining the atlantic council today to discuss working with the united states on intentions and the israel-hamas war, and that country's goal in de-escalation. that is on c-span2, noon eastern, c-span.org, free c-span now video app.

also today republican congressman darrell issa discusses u.s.-south asia relations, looks at the challenges and opportunities this coming year in that region. that is hosted by the hudson institute here in d.c., 2:00 eastern is when you'll see that on c-span2, c-span.org, free c-span now video app. back to your calls. john in nine mile falls, washington. republican. caller: yes, i have a question about your fact checking on the newspaper you display in front of you. i was curious to see how many conservative views you have out there. could you point to them? host: the editorial board of the wall street journal is generally considered to be very conservative. this is their headline on the topic that we talked about this

morning, biden-iran, three dead americans. the editorial board of the washington times, as well, usually leans to the right. also spend a lot of time in the morning going through various news websites, political news websites on the left and right. trying to bring you a variety of views, opinions every morning, john. caller: that's fine. i try to listen to open forums but it seems more like propaganda that i have to listen to. i appreciate the c-span but i just would like to hear some more conservative outlooks. host: what is your go-two news outlet, john?

caller: usually the washington times, new york post. host: i have the front page of the washington times here. the lead story, biden pressed to act after deadly strike on u.s. troops. trigger turning point here. that is the front page of the washington times this morning. caller: did you read that today? host: i personally read it today. it was not the first headline i used. i believed i use the associated press headline. does that work for you? caller: that is kind of a left-wing thing. i am just kind of wondering about the election coming up with ruining the democratic party and going to independents to screw up that one. host: john in washington.

houston, texas. brenda waiting on the line. democrat. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a couple of things here. in regards to the amnesty, ronald reagan kept doing it, and that was a ploy to get the cheap labor here in america, trying to break the unions. i will talk about that another time. in regards to this war, biden's efforts, please appeal to the democrats only, real democrats. we are not going to leave biden's side. we will be in the long run with him, standby and support him. host: what is a real democrat? caller: i'm sorry. let me finish.

bb's dream has always been to get america in a riff with a ran -- iran. bb is the problem. i told you people this before. bb is the problem. no one is willing to say it. host: you said real democrats will stick with joe biden. what is a real democrat? this is scott, illinois, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, america. thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of points i would like to make, and a little bit of history. so of us are old enough to remember the jimmy carter years. what happened was the interest rates went over 20%. food prices didn't really go up, gas prices went up a little bit, we didn't get hit with insurance and stuff. we thought that was the worst president. this one is different.

when it comes to the gas prices, we all see gas and food prices skyrocketed. my wife and i, both retired, great grandparents. we got a 450 dollar increase on our house insurance, and the car insurance went up. i make 650 a month. that is one month's increase just on the house insurance. so you have to have it. lastly, to the legislators of this whole country, no matter what party, social security, 3.2 raise we are all getting. some people are making $3700 a month. i make 650. instead of doing 3.2, why not do 9% to the lower income people? i talked to a lot of elderly people making little money. we make $100 and that is disposable income.

but the richer people getting 3700, they get $20. it will not affect them that much. if i make $3700 a month, i would be in hawaii. next month, another 3700. i don't know if i would ever come home. that is not the way social security works. they give a raise, it goes across-the-board. help out the lower people. it is easy math. if the government were to spend $10 billion, it will be $10 billion either way. problem not solved, but at least that helps the lower income. thank you. i have taken enough time. host: i will bring that up in our next segment on the washington journal, talking about social security. this is dave in texas. republican. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i really enjoy your show.

for all of those democrats that call in, i would like to see you then apply diversity, equity, inclusion to, let's say, the nfl. how about the university of michigan football program? i think they should have more women involved in professional football. i think the democrats should address the issue of a chinese balloon floating over the entire united states. can you tell me why you want a wide open border allowing, i don't know, terrorists coming into our country? i find it amazing that democrats resort to name-calling instead of addressing issues.

they hate republicans. they call us, i don't know, racist. people insult me every day. i don't call them racist. people make mistakes when they address other people. what happened to free speech? there are just so many issues that are not addressed by democrats. host: to chicago. anthony, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i am calling in today to just hear some commentary nancy pelosi's comments she made during sunday's shows yesterday

in which she insinuated that my fellow citizens protesting against the u.s. involvement in gaza, palestine, that anyone protesting is somehow being influenced by russia and putin to do so. it is unfortunate that the democrat party needs to lean so hard into their wildly unpopular positions that anyone who disagrees with their position must be influenced by some foreign actor, that it cannot simply be that we are using the only means and methods we can to voice our disapproval in their policy, that they are unwilling to accept that, except the reality -- accept the reality

and call us foreign actors. host: here is a headline you are referring to. the conversation, comments, yesterday as you pointed out. when you say that we or that i have protested, what kind of protests have you participated in, what have you done to raise your voice on this issue? caller: there have been weekly protests in chicago, john. nearly every weekend, every saturday for the most part. we march downtown. host: do you go every saturday? caller: i try to. i am not going to give up my location so much. we all know how that goes. beautiful environment, a lot of highly educated people on this issue who know a lot of the

facts about this situation ,spanning a half-century here. see it for what it is. host: have you been involved in other protest movements before? is this the first issue that got you out marching on a saturday repeatedly? caller: this is certainly one of the largest reasons in my lifetime to, but no, in 2020, after the police violence, the decades of police violence. i was out there. host: what was that like? caller: same thing. just us citizens doing what we can do to voice our approval and what we see, the reality we see around us, desperately trying to get our elected leaders to

listen to us. the democratic party, republican party demonizes just as much for doing it back then. we were violent and artists burning down the city. i live in chicago. i hear caller saying that i destroyed my city and brought it to the ground. just out of touch with reality. to hear the stuff from leaders of the democratic party also blaming us for things. host: do you think leaders are listening to you when you are out there? do you think you are getting results on your issues when you do these sort of things? caller: no, we are not. you will get some folks that want to attach themselves, glom onto that population, especially around election time, is when they really pretend to have an ear to what we are saying, maybe some of the talking points get picked up, but when you look at

the span of time, have we addressed the police violence issue? have we addressed school shootings? have we address the issues of the terrorism that comes out of the statements that trump or other republicans make that lead to violence, like in el paso, texas? no. out of all of the actions, the desperation of us gathering together to speak out, i have not seen the progress. i will not speak for everybody. currently, we are not seeing any progress gaza-palestine. biden just pulled all funding, a lot of western countries pulled funding out of the u.n. wira which provides funding to refuse he's -- refugees. we are asking, hey, we don't

approve. host: i am running short on time. you vote every election, anthony? caller: i do. i think i can assume what you are going to ask me next. i voted democrat in the past. i saw that as an issue of harm reduction. i don't think i can. i don't see any differentiation. i am going to vote because there are lots of good local issues and my primary, to be clear, but on that top line for my senators, president in the future, i'm having a hard time coping with the reality here of what those folks are willing to support in the face of mass disapproval. they will continue to support it. i cannot continue to support them. host: anthony from chicago. i appreciate you explaining why you are out there. one more call.

audrey is in decatur, alabama. republican. thanks for waiting. caller: thanks for having me, john. i have a little problem this morning with people calling in, disrespecting what i feel like is a most serious, egregious issue of our three soldiers diane, -- dying. i would just like to remind people, the towers happen next to my building in 1991 in february, when the national guard unit arrived, they got hit, several killed, patriot missile. we dodged scuds for two months before we went to the field in saudi. and then they succeeded in 1996,

hezbollah. injured 498 people and took down kovar towers. host: you are a veteran yourself? caller: 1984 to 1998. and i have a son who is infantry, who is getting ready to leave. i would appreciate now -- i am not a fan of president biden. i am a republican, but i do not believe in having our men and women in uniform as sitting ducks. this is a personal issue for me. and there is not but 1% of us that defend this country. i don't mind what these people are saying. that is their opinion, they are entitled to it. i fought for the right for them to say whatever they are getting ready to say. host: do you know where your child will be deployed to?

caller: yes, i do. host: is it the middle east? caller: i cannot divulge that because of operation security. i would just like to let you know, this is personal with me. and this has been going on for on and on. it is a hard call for me to make. i have not called since before 2020, and no, i did not vote in 2020, but i will be voting in 2024. i didn't want either one of them. after what happened on january 6. i have to put that in the past and look for somebody that is going to be a strong commander in chief. four general austin to be absent without leave, as far as i'm

concerned, that is on acceptable. host: tree in alabama this morning. last caller in the segment of the washington journal. about 45 minute select. in that time we will look at the challenges facing social security. we will be joined by charles blahous of george mason university. stick around for that discussion right after the break. >> when nigel hamilton was a student at cambridge university, he stayed for a brief time with winston and lydia churchill at their home in kent. he also spent hours talking about world war ii after the war of course with field marshal montgomery. these experiences lead to a life

as an author. he first moved to the united states in 1988, based in the boston, massachusetts area. books include the bestseller jfk, reckless youth. two volumes on president bill clinton, and a trilogy on fdr about his role as commander in chief during world war ii from 1941 until 1945. nigel hamilton is now an american citizen. >> nigel hamilton on this edition of books notes plus. available on the free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our lives collection of products, apparel, books, home to core, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan, and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at

c-spanshop.org. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast, and on q&a, hear wide-ranging conversations with the nonfiction authors and others were making things happen. book notes plus episodes are a really long conversations that feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. and the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates, and bestseller lists. find our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts, and on our website c-span.org /podcasts. >> for c-span's voices 2024, we

are asking voters across the country what issue is most important to you this election and why? >> the most important issue this season is immigration. >> economics. >> i think that homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed. >> we invite you to share your voice by going to our website c-span.org/campaign2024, recorded a0-and why. c-span's voices 2024. be a part of the conversation. >> washington journal continues. host: always glad to welcome back charles blahous, senior research strategist at george mason university's mercatus center discussing a new report on the status of social security and medicare. this is an annual report from the social security and medicare board of trustees. first, remind us who those folks

are, what their mission is. guest: there are six trustees. four of them are trustees by virtue of their government offices, ex officio trustees. secretary of treasury who is a managing trustee. sec. of labor, hhs, and the full security commission. normally there are also -- sadly we don't have them now -- but normally two members of the public that serve as public trustees. i did that once. the two public trustees tend to be the public face of the trustees report. when there is testimony in congress on the contents of the report, it tends to be delivered by the public trustees. but the annual reports are very important, important because they basically tell lawmakers and the public the amounts of the changes that have to be made to social security if we want to

continue in its current form. just by way of background, social security is a unique animal among federal programs. pretty much every other federal program, income support program, you don't know what you paid into it, you don't know when you might receive benefits, don't know what those benefits will be. it is all in one big pot and the terms are negotiated every year. osha security is different. when you have a job, you have separate allocations. taxes taken out of your paycheck that go to the social security trust fund. social security operates as a separate, self financing system. that is very important because social security is unique, their benefit security derives from that structure. this goes back to the time of franklin roosevelt. he didn't want a program battling for funding each year. didn't want a program where it was continually subject to the whims of politicians as to what

the benefit rules would be. he wanted something where people could say, we earned these benefits, we paid for these benefits, we funded these benefits, therefore they could depend on them. social security has delivered that. there is a catch. it only works as long as lawmakers are willing to align the programs benefit schedules with it tax schedules. if they are not going to do that, they are no longer willing to do that, then we cannot have this kind of self financing system. unfortunately, the program is badly out of balance now, and the trustees report are telling us that a negative changes need to be made. host: theetement trust fund can y 0% of benefits until the year03 less than 10 years from now. after 2033, reserves will become depleted and they n ntinue to pay up to 77% of benefits, but the disability insurance trust fund could pay 100% of its

benefits through almost the end of its century. how concerned should congress and the public be about those projections? guest: very concerned. one point that i often am compelled to make is that even though it may sound somewhat reassuring that the program is not projected to be insolvent until the early 2030's, we have to be cautious and not rely too much on that date. by the time that date rolls around, it is too late to solve the problem. the better measure, i think, of the challenge lies in what is the size of the changes you have to make to keep the system solvent? as you noted, we have enough revenues in those trust funds, revenues coming into payroll taxes where we could pay 77% of scheduled benefits. but remember that 77% includes people who are already receiving benefits.

lawmakers are usually not willing to cut benefits to people that have been getting them for several decades. if you ask the question what do we have to do today to make the system solvent for the long run? we would have to make changes that are equivalent to reducing benefits across the board by 25%. future benefit claims, 25% across-the-board. that is a huge change. lawmakers will not go onto the floor of congress tomorrow and enact a law cutting everyone's benefits by 25%. anything that we do will be much more gradual, will not be nearly as sudden, which means ultimately you have to be bigger than 25%. if you factor in a cost of delay, and say what are the size of the changes that we have to make if we wait until the 2030's, by then the shortfall is so large, it's actually larger than the amount of savings you can generate by cutting up all benefit claims. we would never cut off all benefit claims, but it shows by

then it's too late to fix the problem. it's already late in the game. we need to take action soon. we certainly cannot afford to wait another presidential term to get the job done. host: 71 million americans per month receive social security benefits. benefit, retired worker, about $1900 a month. disabled workers, $1500 in monthly benefits. we have a special line in this segment for those 71 million americans if they want to chat with you about this program, future of social security. (202) 748-8003 is that number. otherwise, lines for emma kratz republicans, independents as usual. what is the easiest solution here to not have that nearly 25% cut? is it raising the age of social security? is it new taxes or increased taxes?

is there a magic bullet here? guest: i would say the bad news as well as the good news is you have to do a little bit of everything. that means you have to have bipartisan cooperation. you will have to have republicans and democrats both participating. neither side will get their way. if you are as far left as you can be and what it all to be tax increases, those increases are incredibly large. if you acted today, you have to raise the payroll tax from 4.6% to the equivalent of 16%. even our furthest left-leaning lawmakers do not want to change the payroll tax that much. similarly on the right, if you want to do it by cost restraints, we are past the point where you can fix social security without additional revenues and still maintain the current level of benefits. you will have to do a little bit

of everything. eligibility age also have to be a part of the picture. there are three main factors in the equation. one is the tax burden you carry as a worker. what is the annual income you can have in retirement. the third is the number of years over which your retirement income is stretched. his, as is happening under current law, as we get older, all of that extra life is added to the amount of time that we spend as beneficiaries, none of it at it to the time that we spend as workers. what happens over time is the relationship between worker tax burden and your annual income security gets worse and worse. host: right now, people are incentivize on not taking it right when you turn 62. is there a way to increase that incentive to get people to wait even longer? guest: great question. i will try to give a fairly short answer but there are

several things i could say. the most common age of claim believe you are not remains 62. that is not going to work. when social security was first created, the generation that fought the spanish-american war, much shorter lifetimes than ours. they were not able to collect the full 65. today the common age is 62. the earliest eligibility age is definitely an issue. there are incentives, as you note, the later you claim, the higher your annual benefit gets. but that adjustment doesn't actually take account for the fact -- basically, that attempt to keep your lifetime benefits equal no matter how long you live which doesn't account for the fact that if you stay in the workforce, as we hope they would, continue to pay payroll taxes, they are continuing to pay payroll taxes without any net change expected in their lifetime benefit.

that is not a good deal for them. in my subjective opinion, we would increase both the rewards for the retirent claim as well as the offset for the early retirement claim. some other ideas have been suggested, too. in some systems abroad, he delayed credit is offered as a lump sum option. people seem to be more sensitive to the lure of getting a check for $20,000 rather than a slight adjustment to their monthly benefit. host: a viewer brought it up in our open form segment. i promise i would bring it up. he said when there are cost-of-living increases for social security, why does it go to everyone across-the-board? why not just the people who are receiving the least amount of social security, as these are the people that need it the most? the people getting the most social security don't need an extra $100 a month. why not find cost savings that way and focus the cola to the

people on the lower end? guest: there is certainly substantive merit to that thinking, which is that the actual cost of living, the cost of your consumption needs is less for you if you are a higher income person. you spend less of your income on consumption. you could create a rationale therefore for saying past a certain point, we will cap the cola amount. historically, social security has tried to embrace the virtue of simplicity, one cola for everyone, no special rules for this or that group. it wouldn't be that complex to put an annual cap on the size of the cola, so that you got the full amount if you are a lower income person but not if you are higher income. host: 30 minutes left, talking about social security, about the future of social security in the waste of this trustees report that came out. charles blahous, currently a

senior research strategist at the george mason university mercatus center. always plenty of calls when we have this topic. mary is from front royal, virginia on that line for social security recipients. caller: thank you for having me. i am curious about the other side of the social security. for instance, when an employer has to pay fica, they are able to write that off as an excise tax or something. then they receive social security as well, so it is almost as if they are double dipping. guest: the taxation of social security contributions is complicated. i will try to make some sense out of it. the caller is right.

the employer share of the contribution is tax-deductible to the employer. it is regarded as an expense of doing business. the employee share, the part taken out of drug wages, is not -- wages is not tax-deductible. in some ways that is artificial. most economists will tell you, in effect, both halves are coming out of your paycheck. certainly comes out of your wages, the amount of compensation your employer can give to you. another implication here is the taxation of benefits. right now, depending on your income in retirement, up to 85% of your social security benefit is subject to the income tax. this is a reflection of an attempt to only tax a portion of

your social security benefit that hasn't already been taxed you made the fica contribution. earlier i was talking about social security trying to embrace complicity. -- simplicity. if you really want to do it accurately for each person, each person would have a different percentage rather than 85%. what happened was, when they were trying to figure out how much, they did the number of calculations and included that 85% was a reasonable proxy for the average amount of benefit that had not already been taxed on the way in as contributions, and that is why they are taxed where they are. host: another social security recipient. doug is in florida. caller: i saw a program on c-span here about a year or so ago where they were debating social security. i actually heard a republican say, we are not going to be able

to get the rest of the world or us down to the rest of the world if we keep paying all of these benefits. why are we trying to go down to the rest of the world instead of trying to make the rest of the world come up with us? guest: i cannot speak to the nature of the comment or the thinking behind it. i will say, i think most policy experts, lawmakers, when they think of social security, they are thinking primarily of how to make sure it is financially sound. the things that have to be done to make sure social security can continue in its current form are not things that lawmakers find pleasant to do. either raise taxes or raise eligibility ages, or reduce the growth of the benefit formula. reality is we have to do all three. politicians don't like doing any of those things which is why it hasn't been done.

unfortunately what happens, the longer you delay action, the more severe those changes have to be. if we had made legislative adjustments 30 years ago, they could have been a lot more gentle, and they would not have been felt very acutely by any cohort of beneficiaries or taxpayers. unfortunately, lawmakers have not done that, delayed a long time. the more they continue to delay, the more difficult it becomes. host: why did we decide to set a cap on how much we would tax social security? guest: historically, that is because the program is supposed to provide a floor of income production. the way the program works, getting back to what i said earlier about the idea of this being an earned benefit, self financing benefit. each individual's benefit is a direct function of their earnings that are subject to the social security tax.

you have this individual tie between what you contribute and the benefit to which you are entitled. that's a big reason why we don't think of it as welfare. i contributed to this benefit, this is the amount i contributed. the thought was beyond a certain amount, higher income people don't need more benefits. they don't need to make contributions pass that amount. there have been many proposals. my guess is that any bipartisan solution to social security's financing shortfall would probably involve an increase in the amount of income subject to the tax. host: with that increase the amount of income subject to the tax, then equate to more osha security benefits for the person whose wages are being taxed, or are they using that money to fund other parts of the program, and there social security monthly statements stay the same? guest: exactly the right question. not everyone asks the question, so i'm glad that you asked it.

we have this earned benefit structure where your benefits are a function of your contributions. when you tax higher income people more, one of two things happen. either you pay more benefits to people that don't need it, all you have to sever that connection between contributions and benefits. that is kind of crossing a rubicon in social security. once we sever that connection, we do change something fundamental about social security, where some people, as with other programs, some are paying taxes into the program and not getting anything from it, others are getting benefits that they didn't actually fund. that dynamic in other programs has led to political collisions where you have the interest of taxpayers pitted against the interests of beneficiaries, which is why we are constantly saying, what are the eligibility means?

if you sever that connection in social security, you risk creating that type of dynamic. there is a way to get the best of both worlds. you can, at the same time as raising the caps on wages, you can go to the benefit formula and cut the accrual rate on the higher end. the benefit formula in social security is a progressive formula where the amount of your contributions accrues a benefit. it is like a set of tax brackets but in reverse. the numbers get smaller and smaller as you go up the income chain. when you have higher income, you accrue benefits at a much lower rate. if you raise the cap wages, you can cut that on the higher end, so you don'ha completely, but you also don't wind up losing all the savings to the system from taxing higher income people by paying benefits that you don't need. host: simplicity argument?

guest: if we were to do something terribly novel within the system, you can get away from the sympathy argument, but the benefit form is already there. this would just be a matter of changing the numbers to make it more progressive. host: houston, texas. line for democrats. joseph, good morning. caller: good morning. i will make this quick. my question is, how does the immigration issue help to increase the trust fund? second, is the advantage plan using the demand on the system -- easing the demand on the system? host: i think he was talking medicare advantage. we are focusing on social security. guest: now, substantively,

higher immigration tends to increase social security. immigrants pay taxes before they become beneficiaries, and they tend to be younger than the general population. you get a considerable burst of revenue when you have higher immigration. in the trustees report each year there is a sensitivity analysis which shows how program finances look with higher levels of immigration, lower levels. program do better with higher levels of immigration. i have to caution, nothing changes the progressions too much, when you are talking inflation, immigration, fertility, the basic contours remain the same. we are just improving around the edges but immigration does improve the finances of social security in general. host: patty on the line for republicans, out of the steel city. good morning. caller: i have a question and

comment. i am a boomer. into social security. the politicians couldn't keep their sticky hands off of it. they kept on stealing our money. now they are telling us we have a problem, we don't know if we can pay you the benefits. guest: this is a concern that many people have expressed. i think there is a legitimacy at the core of the concern, which is that, for many years, social security ran surpluses. most analysts say the effect of that was to fuel additional government consumption. they were not saved in an economically meaningful way. but that is different from saying the money was stolen or taken out of social security. what has happened, every time the federal government receives that surplus money, they issued

a treasury security to the trust fund. the trust fund built up a storehouse of roughly $3 trillion in treasury securities. that money is being paid back with interest. the program began to run cash shortfalls in 2010. social security's shortfalls are not because politicians stole anything, but the trust fund continues to receive all of that money represented by taxes. host: social security was set up under fdr. was there a plan for surpluses coming in? guest: another great question. until the 1980's, social security was generally run on a pay-as-you-go basis. there was an informal rule. the secretary of the treasury for fdr. there was great resistance back then to the idea of social security running surpluses. there was resistance on the left and right.

the right didn't want the government controlling this massive investment pool, steering it and controlling the economy. the left didn't like it either. the left didn't like the government sitting on a big stack of cash and people could be getting benefits. the two sides reached a compromise to basically have a system operate on a pay-as-you-go basis. fdr actually wanted a pre-funded system. it was run on a pay-as-you-go basis for many decades though there was no massive surplus, until one began to accrue in the 1990's and 2000s. historically, there was not really a plan for what to do when the government ran a massive trust fund because there was not intention to be one. host: two the peach state. social security recipients.

good morning. caller: good morning. i don't have as much of a question as i do a comment. when i was 14 or 15 years old, believe it or not, watching i must have been a dork. [laughter] host: not at all. caller: at this time, that discussion was still going on. we are going to run out of social security in 10, 20 years. it was in the near future. at that time i didn't know what social security was. here we are having the same discussion that we will run out of it. maybe i am being a little ignorant, but i tend not to listen to that too much anymore because it seems like it's been going on a long time. guest: first of all, i think the cool kids what c-span, not the dorks and the nerds. host: very much with you. guest: the caller is voicing

something that i think is important, and i think it is something that you find an undercurrent of even with lawmakers and policymakers, the idea that we have been through this before, social security survived before. there have been times when social security faced an insolvency projection and found a way to fix it. unfortunately, i think this has led to a little bit of complacency, precisely related to what you asked moments ago. historically we didn't have this surplus. in the 1970's, when things started to turns out, there was not a trust fund to draw down, so the depletion was right around the corner. lawmakers had to deal with it before the annual shortfalls got too large. that morning bell went off, they acted, it was done, even if the

program was just a few months away from not sending out benefit checks. i think that president has let a lot of people, including lawmakers and policy experts, to say we can do the same thing in the 2030's when the program is on the verge of completion -- depletion. unfortunately, the situation is not in any way similar to 1980's. we started running deficits in 2010, now we are drawing down the trust fund. so the gap between annual collections and benefit obligations is growing and growing and growing. technically, the trust fund doesn't run out until the 20 30's, but by then, the two lines are so far apart, lawmakers cannot close it. host: so the public trustees report says we can pay one hunter percent of benefits until 2033. you are a public trustee in 2010. what were the projection you are making in 2010, 2033? guest: very similar.

they bounced around, a year this way, that way, always focused on the mid-2030's. it is remarkable in this world of imprecise government forecasting, where forecast go all over the place, the trustees projections have remained markedly stable and accurate. part of that, in social security, things are marketable. when you look at medicare, health care inflation, that is more difficult to addict -- predict. social security, most of the factors are known. you know with the payroll tax is, the number of boomers, pretty much all the information you need to make a reasonably accurate projection, so the protection don't tend to move around that much. unfortunately, another thing that doesn't move around that much is the message of the trustees. when i was a trustee, saying the exact same thing. big shortfall, it's coming. deal with it now, don't wait until the 2030's.

people didn't listen to us but the refrain has been the same. host: about 10 minutes left with charles blahous from the george mason university mercatus center, taking your phone calls. what is your work focused on at the mercatus center, what is the mercatus center? guest: it's a research institution affiliated with york mason university. we generally do research in various aspects of public policy. my research, in keeping with my work as a trustee, on the overall arches of the federal programs. a lot of work on social security, medicare, medicaid, the federal budget as a whole. host: adam is a social security recipient. good morning. caller: good morning. social security is an interesting topic. when i was teaching high school business math, i taught them about the first recipient of the

social security check. they had to write an essay about social security and how it was not going to be there for them. supposedly they were supposed to get it. a couple questions. if we look at the tax on social security, started at 1984, 35% on that, adjusted now would be $99,000. another question on wep, which very few people know about. those of us that went into public life, i was in public education, have a $2000 a month retirement check for that, but i lose $285 off of my social security because i only have 23 years of substantial earnings instead of 30. why couldn't that be brought down to 20 so we are not penalized for going into education?

one of the things that president biden said during his presidency was that he would end the windfall earnings for those of us on social security. when we started social security, those people that lived to be 18 years old had a life exit see -- life expectancy of 68 years old. now people are living too long. host: you bring up a lot of topics. the first topic you brought up, there is that famous picture, receiving the first social security check. guest: i should have been taking notes. the second question was about the windfall elevation provision. host: there were several questions. guest: this is an interesting one, and i know it's frustrating for people who move in and out of state, local retirement plans versus social security. the reason it exists is because

of a quirk, shortcoming and how social security operates. the way that benefits are structured are in some ways a reflection of the fact that the benefit formula was drawn up a long time ago. your benefits are based on your lifetime average earnings. there is a progressive benefit formula that attempts to give you a better rate of return if you are on the lower income end. the consequence of that is that the system cannot differentiate between a person who earns a lot of money in a few years of earnings versus a person who earned a little bit of money in a lot of years our earnings. just working with the average. what happens is the system unintentionally steers windfall returns to people who only have part of their career covered by social security, thinks they are low income people, because they

cannot see the income they earned in their other employment. this is why the windfall elimination provision exists. i know it is frustrating to people who move from one form of employment to another, but you do have to have something like that, because otherwise the system would pay windfall returns to a lot of people who are not supposed to be receiving it. that said, i think there's a better way to do it then having the wep. if you had a different benefit formula, one where you accrued a benefit for eal earnings, you wouldn't need a wep. we need something like that in the current system, so we cannot just repeal it and not have problems, but if we had a better type of benefit formula, we wouldn't need it. host: do presidents receive social security? did fdr ever receive it? guest: they do. no, federal employees were not in social security until the

reforms of 1983. they were in the civil service retirement system. one of the reforms made in 1983 was to bring federal employees into getting that surge of payroll taxes they would be paying. they were phased out of the old civil service system, put into the new retirement system. host: anything that we should know about ida mae fuller and her story? guest: the significance of that goes back to what we were talking about earlier. the original vision for social security would be that a big fund would build out before you start paying significant benefit checks to people. ida mae fuller and others were a part of a generation that got benefits that they personally didn't pay for. she didn't spend her career paying social security taxes. her benefits were paid by taxing the next generation. this is at the root of our financing shortfall today.

this is an income transfer program, not savings, so it's a zero-sum game in a sense. for every person that comes out ahead, somebody else has to be behind. ida mae fuller came out from the generation that was far ahead, so subsequent iterations have to put in more to keep the system in balance. host: this is paul in delaware. democrat. good morning. caller: my question is i was wondering why there was such a reluctance to make the social security payroll tax more equitable. somebody making 150 thousand dollars pays 6% of their income. if you are making 300,000, you are effectively paying 3% of your income and the percentage decreases the more you make. why not justthat cap so that everyone pays 6% of their income, which would help on the funding end? guest: this reluctance to do everything with everything with

the specter social security solvency, and i would say the level of reluctant to that mechanism is less. it tends to serve us better than most options. my guess, as mentioned, any bipartisan solution will probably have an increase in that cap. but we have to be careful. it doesn't sound that much of the problem. as an analyst who track these conversations online, it is striking how people have a very exaggerated sense of how much of the shortfall can be fixed by doing this. you can raise that cap a lot, probably fixes 50% of the shortfall, you still have a lot to do on the benefit side, eligibility side. even if you eliminated the cap and exposed every penny of earnings in america to the social security tax, you eliminate about 30% of the annual shortfalls. so you still have a vast majority of work to do. we can do that. my guess is any bipartisan

solution we would do that, but it only gets to a small fraction to the way of fixing the problem. host: last call in lake city, tennessee. thanks for waiting. caller: my problem is these commercials on tv with medicare advantage makes all people look like beggars. i'm on traditional medicare. i pay $506 a month last year for social security, what they took out of my social security check, hospitalization, prescription plan. i hear people say that you get all of this free if you go to medicare advantage. people that switch to that cannot come back to the traditional medicare. the purpose is to destroy medicare, that on universal health care plan. host: talking about medicare. any thoughts on that or on efforts to prey on elderly americans when it comes to these types of benefits they receive? guest: it is tough.

this could start an entirely new conversation. i am struck by the amount of advertising in our society about everything from insurance to pharmaceuticals to everything else. clearly there's a lot of money to be made somewhere. some of these advertising budgets are pretty lavish, to judge from my own television set. getting back to one of the things the caller was■! saying, the point that she made about having paid for medicare relates to what i was saying at the beginning of my the -- the argument of beneficiaries that they paid for, earned and funded their benefits is a powerful one. one that shields people from arbitrary reductions and benefits you see in a lot other programs. so, i think we depart from that

in social security at our peril. in social security, we can say in a firm and clear since that, to this point, the resources in the trust funds in some ways represent what workers paid for their benefits. there is a part of medicare that is funded by a payroll tax. there is a part of medicare that is paid 75% out of income tax revenues. medicare is paid out of income tax -- but still, with medicare, i think that one of the things that shields beneficiaries from arbitrary cuts, especially on the hospital insurance side is the fact they paid for the payroll program with income taxes. host: it is mercator's.org if you want to -- mercatus.org if

you want to check out their program. we will be back at 7:00 a.m. eastern and 4:00 a.m. pacific time tomorrow. in the meantime, have a good monday. ♪ >> the u.s. house returns later today at nooern from its district work period. lawmakers will conside several naming bills as well as legislation eure secret service agentcoinue to be paid for overtime. the u.s. senate is back tomorrow 3:00 p.m. eastern. senators will continue debate on the nomination of joshua pulle to be the seventh circuit court eals judge with