♪ host: good morning and thanks

for joining us on washington journal as we do every morning for the next three hours, we are going to be talking about public policy and we are going to be hearing your voices and your views on public policy. this morning we are going to start by talking about money. as you well know for the second time in less than a month, the congress passed appropriations, barely keeping the government open. $1.2 trillion was passed this past saturday morning by the senate. is it time to reassess federal spending? that is what we want to hear from you. is it time to reassess the priorities, the amount we spend, the process? (202) 748-8000 for demra01 for . (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can also send a text message , (202) 748-8003.

if you do, please include your first name and your city if would, and you can see some of our social media sites there if you would like to make comments that way for continue the conversation online. and again, good morning. here is what next year's federal budget proposal looks like. this is the biden proposal. 7.3 trillion dollars budget overall, five point $7 trillion of that is mandatory spending. one point $6 trillion is discretionary. n deficit. currently, u.s. debt is about $34.5 trillion. that is what next year looks like but here at national review. the senate passes $1.2 trillion funding package and a series of

spending fights. the senate passed the funding package worth 1.2 trillion dollars early saturday morning marking the end of multiple spending nights that plagued congress for months. senators approved a hefty spending package which contained the remaining six fiscal year 2024 appropriations bills. despite opposition from republicans were frustrated with a limited time given to thoughtful review, the package was released early thursday morning, meaning lawmakers have less than two days to read just 1012 pages. some republican senators are planning to delay the $1.2 trillion spending package due to the time crunch with senator mike lee of utah: the process utterly absurd■), senator rick scott y saying this is a crazy way to run a country.

roy, republican of texas had this to say about the process. >> the time for continuing the same games in this town is over. there is more time left. i was meeting with automobile manufacturers this morning talking about the extent to which the rule that was filed will force them to go to basically two thirds tv manufacturing by 2032 which means they've got to start building out their supply chain right now. that will fundamentally alter an destroy the livelihoods of millions of americans, driving up the cost of their vehicles, driving up the cost of food which is why you got edie's piling up on lots as we see. what are my republican colleagues going to do today? fund it. you all know what is going on at

the border. my friend talked about the 100 that bum rushed the national guard in el paso that is making all the headlines themñ it is rs every single day. republicans pat themselves on the back and say look what we did, we sent a bill right over to the senate. so i can go campaign all year on the border. so i can use that beautiful little girl as a campaign prop. enough. those same people that funded today, they own it. today owns every stinking benefit. they own the destruction of the american economy with all these regulations killing families. they own the wide open borders causing death and destruction. they own the fentanyl pouring into communities. if you find it, you own it.

>> in the new york times, wanting its revenge as 2023 opens with republicans nearly in control of the house, the far right members of the party considered themselves empowered when it came to federal spending with increased muscle, achieving the budget cuts of their dreams, but it turned out that many of the republican colleagues did not share their vision. or at least, not fervently enough to go up against the democratic senate and white house to try to bring it into fruition. figure mike johnson pushed through a one point $2 trillion bipartisan package to fund the government for the rest of the year. one of the deep cuts or policy change that ultraconservatives had demanded, those on the right fringe left boiling mad at threatening to make him the second republicans eager to be deposed this term.

democrat of washington had this to say on the senate floor. >> as i've said before, this is not the package i would written on my own, but by working together we were finally able to hammer out an agreement on funding bills that protect and even strengthen critical investments in air families, in our economy and in our national security. make no mistake, we had to work under very difficult top line numbers and fight off literally hundreds of extreme republican code entails from the house, not to mention some unthinkable cuts.■' but at the end of the day, this is a bill that will keep our country and their families moving forward. want to talk about what is in this package before our final vote. and i want to start with something that is a top priority forcare, which is far out of reh for so many people right now.

i will seize every opportunity i can to have families get affordable childcare and in this bill i am pleased to say we deral funding for childcare and pre-k by $1 billion. and that is not even counting steps by security to protect the campus programs that help young parents who are in college who need childcare or double the capacity for the universal pre-k program we have prayer service members. ultimately, we need to pass my childcare for working families act to fix this crisis and make affordable childcare a reality for every family, but until we get there, i will keep pushing for every inch of progress to alleviate the stress families are feeling when it comes to childcare. >> in your view, is a time to reassess the federal spending?

mocrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for all others. you can see the federal budget proposal on your screen, seven point $3 trillion for an overall budget. 5.7 trillion dollars of that is mand$1.6 trillion discretionary. $2 trillion deficit and currently, the u.s. holds a $44 trillion debt. new york city, rob, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. you always do an excellent job, so thank you for that. but you know, the whole notion of the swamp, which we've heard people mention over and over again, to me is about how

politicianscontributions from td wealthy corporations, and winding up that legislation is such that they don't pay their fair share of taxes. so the whole notion of the swamp to me has been stolen and now they are talking about all these other unnecessary, to me, issues. cultural issues. that is not the swamp. the swamp is the money system. the myth of trickle-down economics where the rich have so much money in their pockets that it is going to trickle down to the rest of us. host: so when it comes to reforming the federal budget process you are suggesting the way that we fund it should be reformed? caller: you know, we have to get

more money in -- and taxes from the people who can most afford it. host: thank you for calling in, appreciate that. anthony in detroit, independent line. is it time to reassess federal spending with the amount, priorities, process? caller: definitely, all of the above. $34 trillion, i don't think it can be paid back. anyone who thinks that that can be paid back, that unfathomable number, i think they are not being honest. the one that really borrows me the most is the foreign policy, where we actually see a lot of bipartisan agreement, democrats and republicans, they conduct foreign policy in a reckless way. the strength of our dollar is going to also come into never

having a chance to pay for our debt or pay for anything. host: i want to go back to the 25 numbers, if we could put those back up for a second. when you look at this, out of that seven point $3 trillion proposed budget, 5.7 trillion dollars of that is mandatory, social security, medicare. so only $1.6 trillion is discretionary spending, and foreign aid is a minute part that $1.6 trillion. caller: yeah. social't have a great answer for that one because i understand the demographics are going top-heavy, but for medicare, i think the whole medical system could be simplified with medicare for all. we could cut down so much red tape and paperwork, so that is

saving them medicare. that is my opinion. host: thank you for calling in, appreciate it. florida, democrat. caller: good morning, good to see you. i haven't seen you in a while. first of all, i want to say we had a lady that called in yesterday about or today about republicans complaining about not being able to read it. they took a vacation two weeks just before they were going to doo i don't see how they had a problem. another thing, people have been more on their taxes and their homes and stuff. republicans believed in less government spending. th cut the education budget where not only am i paying for school on property taxes,) i'm

paying it on sales tax, and we still have -- which i voted into help pay for schools. every use of pallet uses federal money. host: that said, do you think the tax system should be reformed, do you think we are spending too much money, or do you think the priorities are wrong? caller: what i think is they ought to realize what they are doing. i know they are trying to get more charter schools. and a lot of them are kind of failing. and they are taking regular general education money at the public schools and stuff to put it into private places. that is what i'm talking about. host: thank you for calling in.

frank in cincinnati, republican, what do you think? time to reassess federal spending? caller: the treasury department, -- host: i apologize, connection is too weak for us to hear you. patrick, florida, independent line. caller:call. let me just say these republicans constantly chant about fentanyl and thepen borders. where does all that afghan heroin come in during the afghan war? host: you want to add anything about federal spending, because that is what we are talking about this morning? caller: federal spending. texas, california, florida get the most flood insurance.

the two were to built in flood zones get the most money. texas, california, oklahoma get the most fema money. they continuously build in tornado, earthquake -- host: patrick in ladylike florida. this is gary in jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning. this is the first time i've tried to get you on open forum. to me, the biggest wasteful spending is the military. i don't know when with the last time we saw budget after budget after budget, when are they going to be held accountable for their actual spending? i think we spend more money on military than the next 10 countries combined. host: that is gary in jacksonville. casey, what do you think, time to reassess federal spending and how we do it and what the

priorities are, the amount, etc.? >> definitely. i am with the previous color that we spend way too much money on a military budget. we need to build aircraft carriers and spend more money within the united states. but you can see the divide. congress cannot get along. when they want to come together and do a great budget, they can't do it. they just kick the can down the road and it's unfortunate. the country is just too big to begin with anyway. if i could cut anything i would cut the military budget, that is where i would start. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you, sir. linda for the brookings institution wrote about the federal budget process. this is about aear ago but it is about the pross, a lot out there, a lot of different proposals.

whdoes federal spending so hard to cut? recurring debt ceiling fights will only be by budget reform. logically, she writes, it makes sense to raise the debt limit for next year's budget, but the congressional budget process is irretrievably broken. for the fourth time in the past 20 years, 2011, 2013, 2017 and 2023, the debt ceiling has triggered budget frustration that threatens to boil over into a full-blown seismic shock. the present dysfunction can be traced back as opposed-waterga budget reforms enacted nearly 50 years ago. historically, budgetary powers shifted back and forth between the legislative and executive branches. from 1921 to 1974, the president dominated the budget process. this changed in 1974 would president nixon decided to impound billions of dollars in funds that congress had

appropriated for domestic programs. any flurry of post-watergate activity, congress forced a weakened nixon to sign the budget and impoundment control act 1974 one month before he resigned under threat of impeachment. this 1974 law aimed to reclaim congressional power over the budget while many unwieldy rules, procedures and laws. it provided congressional budget committee layered on top of the existing centers of ysropriatio, ways and means and finance committee. it also introduced sunshine laws that open committee hearings to the public but which inadvertently lead to a surge in lobbying by special interest and a decline in the ability to make in the room where it happened type deals. most budget experts of all political stripes agreed that

reforms had largely backfired. the system has become weaker, less predictable, less capable of reconciling competing demand, and more prone to fiscal crises. prior to 1976, the federal government had never ceased operations for lack of hunting. since then, it has shut down 22 times, completely or partially. in addition, the hn only four years during this time in which congress passed its 12 annual appropriations bills on time, the last of those years being 1997. let's hear from chris. chris is in lewisville, texas, democrat. chris, is it time to reassess what our priorities are? >> i guess i have two main topics. the first one is i agree with thious comment about medicare for all, but i think we should take it a step further --

can you hear me? >> please go ahead. caller: tried to eliminate what they call qualifications, or things like that. one example i want to give is wic covers half of all newborn. the red tape and cover all newborns. that is just one example. another example is a payroll tax , the tax on that, there is an upper limit. we should remove that as well. so all your income is taxed. but clearly, bottom line is we need electoral reform.

for example, in texas, we should really have one, big multimember district so every vote counts in texas. if you live in a red district, you pretty much might as well not go to the polls. it doesn't even make sense. host: we are going to have to leave it there. let's hear from joe in washington, d.c., independent. caller: good morning. i have a problem with the foreign policy. united states government wants to police the world. and then we have to send mey all over to all these different countries to help support them with their fights. it seems like we have wars all

in ukraine, palestine. and more countries than that that they don't even talk about. they are saying we are sending all our money, they are sending we end up in a trillion dollar deficit, but all the money is going outside the country. so how can we stop this flow of money? host: one of the debates that congress is having and will continue to have is with regard to foreign aid and whether or not ukraine and israel, iran should be helped. what do you think about that? caller: i still have a problem with funding all these countries when america is starving. america needs funding.

no other country that i know of -- host: thank you for calling in. the area code followed by the numbers in case you're interested in commenting on how to reassess federal spending. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. ■gyocan also comment via social media and text as well. here are some comments we've received online, on facebook. martin says cut everything but military. one thing that is actually called for in the constitution. health care not federal, housing is not federal, school is not federal, welfare, snap is not federal. and that is a comment on facebook.

this is john saying long overdue but until voters wise up and vote out all incumbents, this will never happen. and finally, both spending and revenue need to be addressed. gop basically took billionaires off the tax roll and then tried to cut social programs. politicians get way too much compensation, don't get me going on the military. next call is john in wisconsin. he still ahead, what you think about reassessing federal spending? caller: good morning. the first thing i like to say is i don't think people realize that the majority of the federal money is actually their tax dollars going to the federal government just liked sales tax.

i'm a retired person, i enjoy watching c-span and i watch the different hearings every day, it's an every congressman and senator elected wants to get money for their district, for different things. both democrat and republican, and it is just going to continue because i never heard one say i think i would like to take a reduction. it is going to work that way unless we make some very strategic productions. thank you. host: the washington times, buying pressures speaker johnson to pass foreign aid and border deals after signing funding bill. president biden pressures house speaker mike johnson to pass the senate sweeping foreign aid bill

. after the securitygress has find funding the government. senate passed the $95 billion last month that includes aid for ukraine, israel and the pacific and so far mr. johnson has not want the bill to the house for a vote. the speaker argued that he would bring foreign funding under consideration in the house once the long-delayed spending process was completed. mr. biden's signature on the lease $1.2 trillion funding package means the end of the fiscal year 2024 and the start of the ticking clock mr. johnson to decide whether or not to bring a foreign aid package to the house. donald and mys -- in missouri. you are on c-span. caller: good morning. host: please go ahead. we are talking about reassessing federal spending. caller: it is so complicated,

our system. i just want to say that our congress is broke in so many ways, and back in the day when it took a week to get to washington, d.c. that was ok, but we got too many members in the house of representatives. we've got 435 people up there who are in their offices twiddling their thumbs for as many years as they can, and spend most of their time calling for cash to run their next campaign. we need to get money out of our system. a poor person cannot even run for office, and that is taxation without representation. anytime you talk about a sales tax or a flat tayo people they have to pay the most budget for

it. any constitutional amendments, most of the problem is they set up there, they don't want to change it they. as long as they got their job. this is the day of instant communication through electronics, the internet. host: how does that instant communications and the internet affect the federal budget with spending, the priorities? how can that be changed? >> caller: what caller: could have an anonymous system set up where you can send in a suggestion, and then the other people can vote on that. if it gets enough votes, we go forward.

we need to have referendums and such. host:michael, connecticut, independent. you are on c-span, we are talking about federal spending and what to do with it. caller: here is a simple, novel idea that will go a long way for problems tax all religious properties. all of it. don't show favoritism. treat all religion in this country at the big business that it is. tax them as a business. the money that you will make will be staggering. just guarantee that that money gets funneled into education. improving the public school system, and dance into state, county colleges and universities. when you educate people as they grow and advance, they will have less need. we will have less need for property -- poverty programs, less need for wellcare programs. but treat all religious

facilities, no escape. they all must be taxed as the businesses that they are. host: michael, do you have a figure in your head of what that would raise if that were the case? caller: you know what, i wish i did. there are people much smarter than i am that could come up with those numbers. i further numbers discussed and the numbers are staggering. you will save the education system, you will save this country, you will lessen the number of poor people in this country and the need will be lesser as well, but treat that will help us enormously. host: marilyn, democrat, good morning, jeffrey. caller: good morning. the guy a few minutes ago, he makes a pretty interesting

point, but i will put it this way. the dollar was made to be circulated. that is something i have to say. keeping it simple. ■jwe have to come back to it eventually. have a great day. host: indiana, chris, is it time to reassess federal spending and how we do it, the amount, the priorities, etc.? caller: it is definitely time to do a lot of that. i love your comment, it changed part of mine. my biggest thing that i want to say, and i■á just praise god for living in a country where we can actually call in and give our opinions. the biggest thing i think we need to do is put an end to republicans and democrats and just literally pray for independents to come up out of the buyer -- mire and do things.

i'm a hard-core conservative but i think republicans and emigra much in different ways. partisanship is probably the biggest problem. it is easy to blame politicians but then everybody else but voters are partisan just as much as them so they are part of the problem. michael, i love your idea, i'm a hard-coreonservative, follower of jesus christ and jesus said give to caesar what is caesar's. and i agree with taxing the church, churches in america. er story, but we are supposed to care about fair share for everybody, and i do believe in that. makes sense, you can't just have properties everywhere and not pay taxes, so i do agree. host: robert is in chattanooga.

caller: thanks for taking my call. i understand these social programs but i think the united states must understand, every social program twe have in america was developed for whites only. when black people started social services, is way down the line. so white people, these programs were mainly for whites. any social program that this country has, it has never been developed for black people. so thank you for taking my call. host: anne is in washington, democrat. caller: i think i called on the republican line but anyway if you take a picture of biden when he first got into office and you look at it, i don't think that

he was thinking about any of the people in the united states, it was only thinking about one man. how come trump didn't win everything he gets and evidently, somebody would read the bible, they would understand why trump does all of the things he does. this is for the republicans, democrats, or whoever you are. there is a higher power. host: from the hill newspaper, one of the issues that some republicans are looking at, the republican spending committee at least, gop faces internal battle over raising age for social rudy -- social security, in their view to protect it and keep it funded.

carl, republican in!i florida, charles, what do you think? is it time to reassess federal spending and how we do it and what we spend it on? caller: i do believe we need to rethink that,o. i've worked all my life, since i was 13, 14 years old. made it home by the grace of god, can only say thank god for that. supporting a military 100%. supporting israel one hunter percent and we need to get our fingers out of these other governments that are anti-american, and we send all our money to these countries who tried host: to destroy us. host:so when it comes to federal

spending, do you think we should be sending aid to israel, to ukraine? caller: i believe we need to send it to israel and ukraine, yes. thank you for calling in. 202 is the area code. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you have an opinion on whether or not it is time to reassess federal spending, how we do it, what our priorities should be, if we should revisit whether or not to look at a balance budget, how we fund it, whatever aspect of federal spending you want to talk about, we want to hear your point of view. there's a couple of texts we have received. remove the nontax status on universities. and one more, dave in orlando,

federal spending does need to be reassessed but congress can't -- when revenue is not collected fairly. america is growing, we can't run the country on a shoestring budg. david calling in from savannah, tennessee, democrat. david, you with us? caller: this is kevin. host: kevin, so sorry, please go ahead and tell us what your view is about spending and whether or not it needs to be reassessed. tell you what, we are going to have to move on. mary, florida, republican, good morning. caller: good morning, america, how are you everybody today? listen, the bottom line is the federal government has always got to spend money on certain things. we are not getting rid of medicare, we are not getting rid of social security, and we need

to pay for it. ■çall those kids that are marchg around in college that are getting free college, they are going to pay. but the bottom line is i think of so many things that are in this budget that are absolute garbage. a hiking trail, a multi-dollar kayak course? what are we doing? these are all things that lobbyistget into our budget that the people ought to know about it. so why don't you put themp on the screen and let people see exactly where all this money is going? thank you. host: talking about a couple of items in the budget, whatever size they are, but when you look at the fy 2025 budget, that is proposed $7.3 trillion of

spending. $5.7 trillion of debt is mandatory. that includes social security and other entitlement programs. only $1.6 trillion is congress gets to debate and talk about that $1.6 trillion. but the 1.9 trillion dollars deficit projected for fy '25, currently the u.s. has a $34 trillion federal that. ink it is time to reassess federal spending, and how we do it? caller: on your chart there you show $5.7 trillion mandatory ending. could you explain, you just started explaining part of it, that the mandatory spending which is the biggest part of the budget includes offense spending

and the veterans that get their health care. host: this does not include defense spending, include mandatory spending, social security and other entitlements. caller: are you sure about that? because -- host: when thlike the last budgs passed saturday mornings for $1.2 trillion, defense spending appropriations was one of those bills. that said, what do you think should happen with reassessing federal spending? caller: well, for one thing, they should look at the entitlements because that probably won't ever happen. but i was pretty sure that mandatory spending included defensepending, but you aid it isn't. host: so do you think entitlements should be reformed? caller:

it should not be cut, but a lot of changes to higher incomepeopl security benefits, all that should be looked at. anytime the debt increases when the next person gets into be the president, he always ends up if it is a republican, it will cut taxes. so when that happens, that increases the overall debt. host: thank you for calling in. steve, like elsinore, california. good morning to you. host: good morning. what i would do is start looking at the nonprofits. a lot of money is hidden in the

nonprofits. either tell them to spend their money for tax them. $1.5 million nonprof ie united states. host: thank you, sir. richard in princeton, texas, independent line. richard, you are on c-span. what do you think? >> i think like any american, of course it is broken. they need to spend it more wisely. i don't understand the corruption up there, why nothing is done about it something needs to be done. host: and a call from west palm, beach, florida on the democrats line please go ahead. >> good morning, i think revenue is the biggest problem. aswe have spending we have good economy. as long as that happens, we are doing good. the minute we stop spending, we

create recession. when reagan was president, we had a low revenue and a good income from the rich, but he decided to stop counting taxes on the wealthy, let it trickle down in the economy. that never works, i'm sorry. i think we should have a different rate of -- way of raising money from these rich people the way it is working right now. they should be taxed a lot. host: $34 trillion debt that we have concern you at all? caller: i don't think so. i think we should try to cut the deficit, but we should bring the income to cut the deficit, not the spending line. it is the income part that is hurting us the most. that is what happened. when roosevelt was president, it was a 90% tax rate for the wealthy.

everybody did well, the country can't -- finally came out of recession. so we went from 90% down to 21% for the wealthy. m. we are cutting the wealthy part of income. there was a bank robber, willie sutton. they said why do you rob banks? he said that is because that is where the money is. so when you are raising revenue, you should take it out, take some from the rich that can afford it. thank you. host: frank in cincinnati, republican. frank, are you with us? let's try that again. frank, are you with us? caller: yes, i'm here. host: sorry about that. caller: no worries. $1 million is $100 bills stacked 43 inches tall. multiply that times 1000.

43 million inches is one trillion, times 34, and that is 100 olive bills stacked as tight as you■e can get them around the equator, sir. that is a fact. has anyone ever asked the government to become more efficient? has a president ever asked his cabinet, said i need to sit -- ■■ 2% in every department that u have? no, we can't do that. i think it is ridiculous that they expect us to tighten our belts. i could add 2& wast in my budget but we don't expect that of government. second, there was 25,000 people in our country that were 100 years old. i saw just the other day that my

the year 2060, there will be 500,000 people in the united states that could be 100 years old. we have to raise the social security age in order to compensate. ive to be 65 before. now it is very commonplace. the last thing i would like to say, let's cut foreign aid. it's the united states and the seven dwarves. look at our allies. who are the allies? japan, south korea, taiwan, israel. tiny little islands of democracy. are we goingur back on them? we are a whole way of thinking, a whole mind politically will collapse. unless we continue to support them. thank you very much. host: frank, do you think it is politically feasible security?

the retirement age, or making more contributions for people? caller: they ar to $140,000. i think that should be higher but if they are going to spend it on pork, if you listen to rand paul talking about, previous colors talking about this, if we are going to blow the money on■ that, is no savings. if you just go ahead and blow the money, if you were to put it in a lot box and dedicate it to social security by raising the rate, in the general budget, it will make no difference. but i had to go to 66 and two

months to get social security. i was born in august of 1955. i had to go to 66 and two months to get it. that number is going to keep right on going on. men born today can expect to live i believe 79 years. well he's going to be on social security for 13, 14 years. stop and think about it, your grandparents had five kids. you probably have three kids. your kids have two kids or no kids or they are gay or they are never goint't have children. our birthrate is crashing. we have to have immigration because we are not reproducing as we should.

host: a lot to think about, thanks for calling in. paul is in chesapeake, virginia, independent line. what do@h■y you think that fedel spending? caller: well, i think as far as social security goes, frank had it right with the cap. i've been saying that for years. they've just got to take the cap off and make it always means tested. -- test it. you are asking should they reassess the spending? hink they need to do is reassess some of the programs that they have. ne-yo are saying mandatory spending, some of these programs are double. obama said he would take an axe to the spending. well, with the affordable care act, he threw a bit of gas on it.

and again, then covid hits, so all of a sudden we went from millions of dollars to trillions of dollars. host: stott's next, roseville, california. time to reassess federal spending priorities, amounts? how we do the budget? caller:caller: no, the people in power. let's start with god chuckling at us right now. you can call me a democrat. i did vote for trump in 2016 a convicted felon. but needless to say, we need to cap right now say ok, as much as we need, and then look at spending over the next four years and give ourselves some

time to catch up and say ok, we are spending too much here, too much there, and reevaluate over a lengthy time because it takes us time to catch up. god knows this, he loves us. call me a christian first. but on every single, god says in scripture, owe no man. so week owe. as a result, we need to figure out how as a country, we decide the way we are going to go. host: we are going to leave it there, vehicle and the project team in kentucky. republican dean, what you think about this conversation we are having this morning after mark caller: i would say anytime the government get their hands on more money, they tell us they are going toics or social security and we can't get our social security until we are 75 year old.

they are not going to say that. the government is going to get that money, take it, spend it, and want more. host: so what is the solution to what you identified is the problem? caller:: there is not an easy answer. when they give us today 70, they are going to use that money for other p. they are not going to wait for social security. we're spending all this money that we are sending overseas the rain, israel, taipei. we are spending money we don't have, having money sent to them. host:,■s that is dean in kentuc.

this is wilson, north carolina, independent line caller: good morning, can you hear me? host: we are listening. caller: yes. you know people are calling in and talking about earmarks and stuff like that. it is a drop in the bucket. and foreign aid and stuff like that if we have it found budget when bill clinton was resident back then in the late 90's, 2000, at any rate, he went into this war and into iraq, iraq and afghanistan, state 20 years. now, i would love to see you do a study and give it to the people. that war, when you add up all the money that we spend over there, it adds up to be $50. -- $15 trillion.

that adds to the debt. then you take in that we bailed out the banks under republicans, we bailout the banks because of what they did. he gave all these tax cuts to the rich, even during times of war, which is a no no. when you add up all those trillions of dollars, you've got about $25 trillion right there. with the interest that we are still paying on that debt that we borrow that money to fight these wars. that is where it started from. the interest keeps adding up and adding up. so if you really look at it, it with the republicans that put us here mainly their spending, and now today it seems like the democrats are doing it. we are fighting all these■ó wars and sending all this money, billions and billions of dollars, which is not quite for foreign aid entries overseas and

then in our backyard, you look at haiti. mi i still on? host: still with you. caller: you look at haiti and you look at all these countries south of our border, right in our backyard. 40, 60 miles away, and we do nothing. nothing to them because these are people of color. actually, we destabilize these nations. and then you set up there tapping destabilize them, they come here. look at what we did to venezuela. that is another republican problem. people need to wake up and ■3■c-span, i wish you all could educate the people on what is going on. host: thank you, we appreciate your comments. pittsburgh, democrat. good morning. caller: i would like to second everythingt and help people und

what is happening to our money. there is a website, is a nonprofit, and you can go in there and look at your own community and see how much money has gone into the pentagon that should have gone into your tcommunity, or where it could have gone instead. and what he was saying about all that money that we spent on the wars, it has driven up the debt. so i'm hearing some republicans say the defense spending is less than the interest on our debt. the defense spending is why we have the interest on the debt. so we need to take a good, hard look at how every single congressman and every sigel state has a piece of the pentagon puzzle in their district. so when they go to curtail defense spending, they know that this will be hurting some part of the district and some more than others. as part of the problem right now that mike warned us about. we need to take a look at how

much money is going out the door every single minute to finance these corporations that are just sucking off the federal teat, if you will, because all of that money is our tax money and it is making them filthy rich. look at boeing, look at bae systems, look at lockheed, look at raytheon. these companies are filthy freaking rich and it is because we are buying stuff we don't even need. trump added another whole division to the pentagonave a space force? i don't even remember that getting debated. all of a sudden we have another litary that we have to with our tax dollars host: thank you for calling. edward, north carolina, republican line. what do you think that the federal budget, general budget process? ank you for having me on.

so i'm in health care and i just believe that there is so much waste in the health care system, both in the entitlement programs early on in the programs of caring for area seniors. i just see tests and things done better just not necessary. and also there is so much control in the family about really unnecessary testing, making people suffer longer just to keep them alive in a nursing home and with a feeding tube. it is just terrible the way it is done in the health care system. we need to figure out some better way to manage that. i guess in some ways, testing on social security medicare. unfortunately, it probably needs to be something like that the fair. but conversely, there testing in

particular but the younger people who receive these entitlements in health care. about their quality of life and the choices they make. we as americans have the freedom to do so, but the problem of the whole population is paying for the outcomes of these so-called freedoms. host: thanks for calling in. last word on this topic comes from james in new jersey, independent line. james, is a time to reassess federal spending? caller: wow. two things that i can say. on the spending side, we need he went into the white house saying that he would cut the federal budget 10% across-the-board. he started with the white house, he balance that budget. in fact, i think we ran a

surplus in the years that he was there. on the revenue■3■÷ side, you ned only look at the elections for the debate between clinton and trump. maybe he's not paying any taxes, and he himself said i'm going to tell you how much i'm worth and you are going to be proud of me. i worked $5.8 billion. well, i don't care if you call it unrealized capital gains or porridge, that makes me feel stupid as a w-2 is getting their income tax. host: thanks, thanks everybody for calling in. the first hour of washington journal this morning, we have two more to go. up next, what is happening in the israel-hamas war and the

u.s. role. after that, we will talk about electric vehicles with jeff gilbert. that is all coming up. ♪ >> celebrate the 20th anniversary of our annual studentcam documentary competition. this year, c-span asked middle school and high school students off the country to look forward while considering the past. highlighting the milestones of the anniversary, each o the future or 20 years into the past.

in response, we received inspiring and thought-provoking documentaries from or than 3200 students across 42 states. through conducting in-depth research and interviews with experts, tackled critical topics such as technology and social media. >> for one, it has already started replacing humans in certain jobs, eliminating entire fields of work. >> challenges in climate. >> i tapestry can no longer sustain this. >> discussions about criminal justice, race, bias, and the american criminal justice system. >> we are excited to share the top winners of studentcam 2024. in the middle school division, the first prize goes to isaac graham newton middle school in unthe documentary, ai reshaping americus tomorrow delves into the evolving role of artificial intelligence. the high school eastern division's first prize is awarded to dermot foley from

montgomery blair high school in silver spring, maryland for his film the promise of langley part , the purple line, climate change and reimagining the future of america's suburbs. choi appetite school in detroit, michigan claiming the first prize in their high school central division with a production unseen heroes, the caregivers of america. in the high school western division, palo alto senior high school inah california earned first prize for threads of change, which takes a critical look at the fast fashion industry and our top awardf foro nate coleman and --, 10th graders at western high school in connecticut. their compelling documentary innocent held hostage, navigating past and future conflict with iran deals with a timely and sensitive subject and features interviews with a former iranian hostage. >> instead of saying you are

free to leave, i was blindfolded, handcuffed, thrown into the back of a car and taken straight to prison. >> to brings me great joy out of 3200 students who participated in this competition this year, you guys of a grand prize winners can studentcam 24. >> this is a huge honor. we are so grateful for this opportunity, really thank you a lot. >> p extend our gratitude to the educators, errands and participants who have supported each of these young filmmakers on their creative journeys. congratulations to all our winners. documentaries will be broadcast on c-span starting april 1, plus you can catch each of the 150 award-winning student and owns online anytime at studentcam.org. join us in celebrating these engaged and inspiring young minds as they share their opinions on the issues that are to them and affect our world.

washington journal continues. host: and now a discussion on the israel-thomas war, the u.s. role should be in it. jonathan lloyd is with the center for new america and the jewish institute of national security of america should there be a cease-fire in the war right now? guest: only if and when hamas gives up the hostages it has been holding for almost six months now. we know there are 130 of them. at least 100 are still believe the alive. the only condition under which there should and and be a cease-fire is if hamas returns those hostages they had so brutally taken. >> it's hard to argue with that. israel was attacked horrifically

resulting in the death of 1200 people. in some cases, murder the police reppo temple thing to happen on that day. they took back to hunter for the hostages of which they arrested 134. many dead, some alive. but israel can't possibly claim victory into the gifted people home. host: -- in the sightlines of israel right now? >> it is estimated that there are four battalions remaining in raw file, roughly 3000 fighters. that is the last hold out for hamas in the gaza strip. it is very clear politically speaking that israel also can't declare victory least, senior le been captured and killed. at this point, i'm clear where they are, but likely they are somewhere hiding in rafah. host: a recent headline in the

washington times u.s. policy right now is to call for a cease-fire with gaza. >> what is missed an immediate cease-fire includes a hostage deal. itl. there is a cease-fire. hamas returned all of the hostages. but if i could just retu the one thing that jonathan said, israel cannot politically declare victory. i think it is more than that. israel cannot militarily declare victory, cannot logically declare victory so long as there is any number of fighters who are still able to be full but in their tunnels. and that is why they are so important, because rafael is the last stronghold.

the last remaining strength if those leaders are not crushed, then remains intact, is unfortunately a strategic loss for israel. the former defense minister and member of the war cabinet said you don't put out a fire by putting out 80% of it. the whole fire has to be put out. and i think that is one of the disagreements the u.s. and israel are having right now. does the entirety of hamas need to be destroyed, or as the u.s. is saying, well some merely tactical, specific strikes that target the leadership be enough? and i think■p that is where that disagreement is coming from right now. host: what percentage of the gaza population is hamas? >> a very small percentage. israel estimated that in the campaign, roughly 30,000 militants. they have killed roughly 12,000

of them over the course of the campaign. but there's a larger problem here that i think is hopefully going to be addressed. current isdefense coming to waso meet with his counterpart secretary austin, as well as the delegation coming from the war cabinet. as well as the national security advisor, they are coming to washington to discuss what should go forward in rafah. there is a problem that has been discussed by u.s. military and political leaders, some of us in the think tank community have been overtly critical but■ also directly in touch with israelis about this, and will talked about putting out the fire, as the former minister put it, that is not really happening. unfortunately, israel is taken a

myopic view of what defeat looks like. israel is going through and tactically destroying battalion after battalion, and then moving on. and what we have seen and what some of us predicted we would see is that hamas is reconstituting itself an insurgency for■(m, going back to areas release the clique in the north not just to stage attacks against israeli's, but also to co-opt supplied military and eight, to basically constitute themselves as the premier governing force and the resistance force to israel. that is a problem that needs to be addressed if israel plans to be successful. putting aside questions about palestinian civilian harm, looking at from the perspective of what is an intricate israel security, israel needs to take a broader view exchange some other lines of effort than just a strict combat operations against organized battalions if they are going to be successful in the

long term. i think even seeing that. obviously there were the operation this week with epic exemplifies what you're talking about, israel went in and tried to shut down but it knew was a command-and-control center and the tunnel underneath the hospital. ■6it then moved on, and we saw n the past that their forces reconstituted there. israel arrested some 300 to 400 of them, tells another 100. i think it also demonstrates the catch-22 that israel is in. what would israel have had to do for hamas not to be able to reconstitute at al-shabaab hospital? they would've had to maintain a very heavy military presence, they would have had to be control and who comes in and out of the north. in a way that would have been an

occupation and had even more international- upon them. so the alternative to the current situation is israel does something that would be by the u.s., by the international community, instead we are criticizing them for not controlling the situation on the wound veteran conditions for this insurgency where i think it would behoove everybody to work together to find, as you were saying, that means which to provide security, provide some measure of basic governing delivery of assistance that doesn't require an occupation. >> let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is a good option. these policies have a menu of terrible and slightly less terrible. there is absolutely the risk of tactical operations being seen as lytic lot nation and certainly in the israeli political spectrum there of

voices that are calling for a reactivation they are minorities, largely extremist, but i would say understanding that there are no good options, what some might term as a success is seeing israel come back and do this operation. to me, strategic failure. they spent weeks clearing this territory in november. they left to move on to other areas, but in doing so, it speaks to me now the fact that they found hundreds of militants including senior militants, that hamsa maintains freedom of movement. this is a problem that actually gets worse for israel of their having tactical success against guys battalion host: (202) and want to talk about what is going on in the war. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8003 is the number for

independents to call. you can also participate via social media. you can send a text to (202) 748-8003 or you can pursue it on social media via x or facebook. jonathan lloyd, he spenth care, haven't you? >> i have. i wouldn't analyst working on middle east issues for the u.s. government. i later served in a policy role in the pentagon in the middle east and later as a staff member on the house armed services committee vering the legislative. host: so from that perspective, what should the u.s. role in all of this be? >> israel is a critical partner

to the u.s.. i don't use the term ally because i'm very careful with that term, something that is very specific legally, but israel is a critical partner and has been over decades. joe biden has demonstrated the importance of the u.s.-israel relationship and there is a nice opportunity to fundamentally change the condition in the middle east by extending israel's relations with its arab partners i think very much we saw that as an ever that was bipartisan in nature beginning with the trump administration a continuing on this administration. so i think what we seen most recently is an attempt by adversaries of israel, proxies of iran to attempt to forestall those massive changes. supporting israel should continue, as it should continue

to all of those partners who are der stress from either revisionist or terrorist forces in the world. host: do you agree that president biden has been supportive in his taking the right tactic when it comes to supporting israel? >> i would certainly agree that will be sought particularly at the outset of this war from president biden was readily staunch and heartfelt and emotional support. you could feel it was coming from his gut, and wasn't just about israel. you could see that president biden understood that this war but had the potential tos become a broader war because of iran's backing for hamas and other malicious and terrorist groups around the region. so when at the outset of the war president biden sent a very clear message to around when he said two carrier strike group in the eastern mediterranean, i think that very clearly showed,

as jonathant the united states had israel's back and that is exactly what we need to continue doing for two reasons. one only very tactio continue with operations with tactical excellence, with precision, with what we see as a professional military operation supported by american weaponry. precision-guide munitions that israel uses for 90% of it strikes which allow us, as it did last week to hit a 20l/ metr underground target from the air with little collateral damage is causwe supply it with those munitions. enough.ing sure that israel has but secdly, because there is a regional issue at stake which is the ability to either allow iran to dominate the region as it is trying to do, with its militias

in iraq and syria, or the alternative vision is to create their original piece that is based on the abraham accords relations with israel and saudi arabia, and that only comes through israeli victory which would also be a victoryor state. host: what is the jewish institute for national security of america? >> we are a d.c. think tank that is committed to a strong u.s. national security posture, particularly in the middle east as a close cooperation between the united states and israel, and arab states. we feet -- we've seen whether that is the uae or others who are committed to working with the u.s. for regional security. host: a lot of air time about president biden's frustration with prime minister netanyahu. his prime minister netanyahu, is

he in the way right now? >> first and foremost that is not a question for ameran decide. he is a democratically elected leader of a democratic u.s. partner and that is a question for the israeli public to decide when the time comes for them to have elections. that being said, if you look at the polling, there is the question of his prime minister netanyahu popular inpolicies po? 80%, 85% for prosecuting thisi war, for defeating hamas/ so if■h. has issues with how israel is fighting the war, it has issues with the israeli public because this is what the israeli public wants. >> respectfully i think that is a little bit reductive. just this week, pc massive demonstrations in israel about

what israel should be prioritizing, many israelis feel the israeli government is not do prioritize bringing hostages home through a negotiating process. all that to say thatviews in thl spectrum, but they are formed by the fact that israel was attacked on october 7 in a way that was absolutely unprecedented. so there is an immense amount of shock and trauma going on. the prosecution of the war is led by netanyahu or simply people believing that the war shouldn't be prosecuted, i don't think we should necessarily conflate those things. polling suggests that roughly four out of five israelis are looking for the opportunity to hold elections at the soonest chance to find new leadershi israelis [no audio] by a [no audio] large hole this government responsible [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] 6 [no audio] [inaudible] [inaudible] the failuresr that enabledrfd www.c-span.org [indiscernible]

4 [inaudible] that lethal attack on october 7,d [inaudible] [indiscernible] www.c-span.orgwww.c-span.org and many israelis/are not satisfied with the way that the government has dealt with the international community in making its case for what it must do. i would welcome anyone to subscribe to some of newspapers and you see many of these views among israelis. so it is just as american politics, quite complicated and there are many views on a host of issues. so too israelis very mixed on how this should be prosecuted, and who should be in charge. host: what is your take on senator schumer'nd netanyahu? >> so this is a challenging thing. allow me a quick anecdote. less than 20 years ago i was a student spending my days studying at the university in israel and i went to learn about israeli identity.

man who was so fascinating, he might have been right out of high school, in the constantly about my views about israeli politics, about the conflict come about this issue. and ultimately i would keep asking for his views. and i got to the point where i told him look, i think it is polite and nice that you are interested in what i have to save that i'm eager to learn about what have to say, what you think as an israeli. he looked at me and said he believed -- and we have this discussion -- that every in the world should have a voice in israel political spectrum. which kind of never really dawned on me. i think there is a tension with jews around the world, what role do they play as jews in voicing their opinion about the jewish national public, about the jewish faith? the gentleman in this case was a jew and a lifelong supporter,

finest supporter of the state of israel, he got that out. his comp again, the fact that he is the senate majority leader, and there are certain things that if you say in that capacity, they will have an impact. so i think it is rather complicated. i would not necessarily suggest american leaders lean so forward into the prognostications of their opinions about other countries, but i will say that there is some, just ask the former prime minister who is basically forced from office by the obama administration, lest the vomit ministration would not intervene to destroy the islamic state and it was resurtrolling f iraq. because it was believed by the administration that terrorist oe

was not the person to lead iraq, and i'm still not making the argument that the relationship is the same as. >> it has the same robustness and freedom of fairness of elections as the israelis. >> i think jonathan and i would largely agree, jonathan earlier said that israel was a partner. i would say israel as an ally of the united states. we share the same values, we come from the same background. we have frank exchanges of views, i think that is perfectly fine for the u.s. to be very up front, whetherumer or others, in what they think about israeli policies. certainly, israel has every right and take every opportunity

to say what it thinks about u.s. policies. prime minister yahoo! is maybe going to give the same in the near future but i think i would draw a line that during an israeli all it takes and trying to dictate to israeli citizens who they should elect on whatthe decided democratic process. host: let's get our scholars involved. you've been very patient, please go ahead with your questions or comments. caller: yes, i'd like to make a few comments and listen to whatever response either death might have. i'm not sure the american people understand the situation in the middle east before this war started as far as the guidelines in the way they are treated by the israeli military. the secretary-general of the united nations called at 75 years of occupation and suffocation. er president jimmy carter

went on a trip to the middle east and he said he wanted to go jogging one day. it was a palestinian man sitting on the curb reading a newspaper and one of the soldiers jogged over. he said if you are going to do things like that, i'm just going to run by myself. that just describes the kind of situation they just can't continue to exist. and i think their publican party going alloy back to the 70's, as long as israel has a strong military that would force the palestinians to negotiate, and it never did. other middle east experts up to this point have always said there is no military solution to the palestinian-israeli conflict and i just don't believe that is true. i don't think there is a military solution to anything in the middle east. million george carlin once said the middle east is the only part of the world for you will find a piece eating force --

peacekeeping force palming a group of religious people. >> i appreciate the comment, i'm a huge george carlin fan so i appreciate the reference. the conflict is immensely complex and not just on both sides, but i would agree with the assertion that this can only be solved through peace, through a negotiated settlement. i am large, there have been efforts to restart it, but it has only gotten more complicated clinically on both sides. it is a bit reductive in the sense that that is the case. but i believe that it is the position of this administration, joe biden wrote it in an op-ed as early asr this war, the solus to move to an negotiating settlement but ultimately seeks

i think that remains u.s. policy. ultimately it is going to take time, but setting the conditions for that now is going to be readil5

soldiers prior to october 7. israel did not go into gaza, hamas since 2007 has been ruling that territory. so what we've seen develop and grow over the last 17not the rei military occupation, it is the result of terrorist occupation. and we saw that on october 7. but that being said, i am optimistic and to share jonathan's views that some point what comes out of why do i think that? if i look back to the last closest analogy that we had to october 7, which happened almost exactly 50 years before, the start of the yom kippur war, 1973, in which the egyptian military launched a surprise attack on israel, israel suffered major losses at the beginning but what happened? it emerged victorious from that

conflict and its victory and u.s. support for israel in that conflict actually convinced egypt that rather than wage another war against israel, it should make peace. and that led to the first peace accords saw the region, jordan laid the foundation for the abraham accords. so i am hopeful that another strong israeli victory in this conflict despite the strategic surprise on october 7 and with u.s. backing can actually create the conditions for anr-year pea. host: what is your take on what some of the arab states have been doing with regard to this conflict? have they stepped up in your view? guest: not especially.axer r hal role in supporting negotiations between israel and hamas and i know there is a lot of controversy over the fact that qatar has played host to hamas

' political leadership but were it not for that activity and that support, there are 104 hostages who would not be home with their families now. by and large other gulf states have taken a wait and see approach. they want to ultimately build relationships with israel that need assurances that this conflict will end and that it will lead to a pathway to peace. that is not guaranteed. that is the u.s. position. but what we have here is a paradox. for those countries to get involved in stabilization and helping bringing about better outcomes in gaza, they need those assurances. those assurances really can't be given until there is an israeli government that's willing to give them and the israeli government is not willing to discuss the day after until they

have defeated hamas. so it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. but this is really what tony blinken's role in the region has been, shuttle diplomat going capital to capital. it was expressed to me by someone that everyone is on their own clock and the clock is moving at a different speed. the minute hand is moving at a different speed, what should be happening when. secretary blinken has been that is ultimately what the administration is trying do. host: john in pennsylvania, republican line. thanks for holding. you are on with our two guests. caller: good morning. thanks to c-span. i really appreciate being given an opportunity to make a few comments. i don't like this since the second world war. i mean, any fair-minded person who has been watching this whole

process knows that it's war crimes. in the first world, the civilized world, we haven't seen this since the second world war. there is collective punishment, just massive slaughter. they've killed 30,000 people without even counting the people that are under the debris. they've destroyed 60% of the residences. as far as what we get from $300 billion that we have given them over the years, we get nothing. they're an enormous liability. we are being humiliated by their defiance. they are supposed to be a client state. it's the reverse. host: john, i think we have your point. i am going to ask you a controversial question. do you consider yourself to be

anti-semitic? caller: absolutely not. under no circumstances. is just. the rest of the world sees what is going on and america is losing our prestige. host: thank you. let's gelt a response from blai misztal of the jewish institute for national security of america. guest: i think first of all recognizing that any life lost is tragic and that there is a tremendous amount ofg happeningn gaza and that it is absolutely right that we are focused on how to alleviate that alongside the goal of making sure that e r crime and suffering of october 7 never happens again. that being said, i do think there is a general misunderstanding about what is and isn't a war crime. i know that there is a lot of talk about now over 30,000 civilian casualties according to ma has but that number is not

indicative of war crimes because th are not taken on some absolute scale. they are not a sum of how many are killed. you don't say 20,000 is acceptable but 20,001 is a war crime. war crimes are judged on the basis of individual attack decisions. commander distinguishing between military and civilian targets? is he taking precautions to mitigate risks to civilians? is objective a legitimate military objective? is it a necessary objective? if you look at tselook at the way they take precautions that they draw up leaflets to let gazzens know where attacks are happening, where they can move safely, the messages they post on social media, the text messages, the phone calls that they make to gazans to make sure they move out of the area where

there are going to be fights going on, the way in which the israeli defense forgses have protected gaz ans trying to flee the battle zone from hamas snipers because hamas doesn't want them to leave, the way israel uses much more expensive precision guided munitions so that it can precisely hit the target with as little damage as possible to surrounding areas, it becomes clear that compared to hamas which fires rockets indiscriminately, which fires rockets that fall on its own hospitals and cause casualties to its own people, israel is fighting with the care and professionalism and attention to its legal responsibilities that we would expect from any western military. and under that, and i think in the assessmen professional military and commanders that i have worked with, this is a law-abiding and professional military and so i very clearly dispute this acquisition that we can clearly see any war crimes here

whatsoever. host: mr. misztal, do you think john was anti-semitic because he was anti-israel's policy? guest: no, as i said i think it is completely fair game to policies. i think you can disagree with how the war is being waged. but i think when we do focus on, for example, 30,000 palestinians have been killed, therefore it's war crimes, therefore it's genocide, but we don't look for example at the half million civilians that were killed in syria and make those same accusations or bring the same level of care, this level of scrutiny or attention that is applied only to israel where others perpetrate intentional atrocities and don't get that same level of attention, i do think there is something unfair about that. host: let's get -- did you want to -- >> if i may. i hear the frustration and i understand the frustration.

first, we really haven't addressed the humanitarian situation in gaza and we would be deeply mistaken if we didn't do that. this is of course a huge issue. it's a huge point of the conversation that's incredibly emotional and a large talking point that gets banded back and forth publicly between some of the space that existsetween the u.s. administration and the netanyahu administration. humanitarian aid can and should flow freely to the palestinian people. that is a key element, not just to reduce civilian harm in this conflict, but also as i maid the argument to promote better outcomes for israeli security. the host of issues that can be pointed to as to why that is not happening but it is important to note that in the way the israelis have prosecuted the fight, there is a tremendous amount of information and disinformation and influence based information out in social media. it is important, and i don't

think it is well reported enough, that hamas has placed in civilian infrastructure throughout gaza because it is their purpose that if they are going tooing to exert attacks on civilian population and that there will be civilian casualties along with it because it can weaponize those civilian casualties in their influence in social media operations to attempt to constrain and stop this conflicw before they are defeated. that is clear. it is important to distinguish between israel's tactics which have like the u.s. and other western to distinguish between civilians and combatants. the way that hamas fights -- hamas entered israel in october. they attacked military installations which are whole separate from civilian communities and then they purposefully went on and rained, pillaged and murdered civilians

throughout the south of gaza. that that israel does. that is not a thing that western militaries do, that is not a thick that -- thing that countries supported by the u.s. do. it is important to make that distinction. that said, israel for its own security needs to think about how it supported displaced and insecure palestinian communities. many of these communities right now are so desperate and that doesn't serve interests. if you take a look at the whole internally displaced persons camp in northeast syria, that has large by become an incubator for a new generation of isis. the people there have been taken advantage of and can be brainwashed into an ideology. that can easily occur and is occurring right now in gaza in conditions that are absolutely unsustainable and horrific. for its own security, israel

needs to be thinking about a population sent rick -- centric approach because hamas certainly is. they're not going to rest in the interim. host: peter, new york, independent line. please go ahead. caller: the first thing i would -- i strongly agree. the first thing i would ask israelis to look at is what happened during world war ii to their population, how they felt, how they were being treated, which eventually the 1947 middle east map, it just shows palestine. it doesn't show israel. so ever since that time, palestinians have been suffering what the rest of the world imposed upon them. israel is now occupying the west

bank with a lot of settlements. they basically -- gaza is an open air prison even though you may say that you are allowing them self-governed, but you have them surrounded. israel has to:@ anything that goes into gaza. i understand that they're looking for weapons and stuff like that, but the people are being oppressed. that's what -- host: peter werks are going to get a response from our guests. we will start with you, mr. lord, and then to you, mr. misztal. guest: i appreciate comments. there really can't be any comparisonet holocaust. the nazis purposefully put the jewish people into camps for the purpose of exterminating them. one can criticize israel's activities, its policies throughout the conflict, but

this is certainly not that. i is too reductive. one other point, and again we can't unpack all of the israeli-palestinian conflict here, but it does prove that we do need to think and understand a lot of this history. the area that was known as palestine was part of the ottoman empire, other empires before that. palestinian identity as it is known today really came up almost in response to jewish national identity in those days in the 1940's. there has been research on this, which is not too discredit or say it is not valid, but there is a tremendous amount of history that needs to be looked at in a nuanced way. both the israelis and palestinians other time have taken steps and missed opportunities th would otherwise have put them in a position for a peaceful outcome. that is true. but i can tell you as someone

who has looked at this for a long time, screaming about the narratives at the top of one's lungs whether one is pro-palestinian or pro-israel, there is no joy there. there is no solution there. the best thing that we can do is take a breath and understand this is a complicated conflict and that to move ahead we must find areas for compromise. >> i would add to that excellent point by jonathan that if we go ba db back to the 1940's, to make one historical point, what the u.n. intended to happen what the u.n. granted was the creation of th a jewisst palest. that was the intent. that was the way map was supposed to look. why that isn't the case now is something that■ñ we should all examine and question why that wasn't sed. host: blaise misztal, we are going to read this tweet or x from steve. is the two-state solution dead, he asks?

guest: i think to jonathan's point about clocks spinning at different speeds, i don't think it's a question of whether it's dead. it's a question of what is the right time to pursue it. and i think that is where there is disagreement between israel and the u.s. right now, where you have seen u.s. leaders suggest that now is the right time to unilaterally recognize perhaps a palestinian state, and i think from the israeli perspective and from the pepectivof sense, a time at which first of all you are still fighting a war against what is effectively the governing party of one part of the palestinian territory is not the right time to declare a palestinian state. a time at which there is no governing structure, no way to distribute aid, no security, is not the right time to declare a palestinian state. there are much more fundamental things that need to be put in place, beginning with humanitarian assistance, security, basic governance, and

then making sure that there is no possibility for another october 7 to happen from the palestinian territories. and then you can talk about creating a palestinian state. so i don't think the question is one of whether there should or shouldn't be a state. the question is what are the priorities now and when should we talk about statehood? host: crystal, pennsylvania, democrat, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have listened to this and it's sort of making me ill just listening to the two of them. i want to say that on october 7, i sympathize with the israeli people, but on october 8 and since then, you lost all support from me. don't say that americans and israelis are the same. we don't want to starve people. we don't want to bomb children and women. and we are not on your side. i am going to tell you all my life, i have read literature

from israel writers and i used to feel sorry for them. but when they became the same people that they are saying is the worst people, they're worse than them. so i cannot sympathize with you anymore. hoennsylvania. jonathan lord of the middle east security programs at the center for new american security think tank, what is your response to crystal? guest: crystal is expressing a sentiment that we have seen a lot on social media, thate i ths resulting from the images coming out of gaza. there is no question that israel could be publicly acqutig its activity better, that also they could be working better with the u.s. and the international community to create better outcomes but what again is completely underreported is the

fact that hamas is seeking to fight from areas where there are women and children. they have installed missile batteries. they have underground lacer -- lairs. they have put themselves behind human shields. this creates a horrific dilemma because if israel does not prosecute this fight against hamas, the lesson that other terrorists insurgents groups will learn through history is that crime pays, is that you can get away with it if you put yourself behind that hamas is an insurgent force that took over in gaza by force. there was a par lamenterrary election in the palestinian authority which hamas won and the following year they basically -- i can't call it a coup, it wasn't bloodless. they threw out palestinian authority leadership from gaza. some of those people who were i suppose lucky got shot in the

knees. the rest of them got shot in the head and a few of them got marched to the top of buildings and thrown off. this is a force that has controlled the population and the institutions of gaza since 2007. they have taken a lot of time and had a lot of success in demonstrating publicly that israel is quote-unquote bad guy and i think that reflects many of the views we just heard. but at the same time, israel must defend itself and we also need to work on ensuring better outcomes for palestinians. host: misztal, are the west bank and gaza separate political entities. guest: de facto they are, as jonathan outlined, the palestinian authority run by the fattah party was forcibly evicted from gaza by hamas in 2007. so you had hamas run gaza strip,

a fattah run one of the sad tragedy is -- tragedies is that we have now a government in the west bank, the palestinian authority government, that is on the 17th year of its four-year term because it's afraid to hold elections because hamas has been making inroads politically and militarily into the west bank. so the fear is that holding elections in the west bank now would result in something similar to what we saw in gaza in 2006, which is hamas winning at least a plurality if not a majority and so you are actually saying unfortunately rather than a moderation of government in gaza, you are seeing a lot of hamas' control begin to spill into the west bank. but thus far they have been two separate political entities. >> it's also important to ne that there is a degree of culpability within israel and particularly this government for its concept of how it operates

and how it thinks of the west bank and gaza. for many years, the netanyahu government over the course of multiple governments actually has sought seemingly to put a pin in gaza and tacitly allow hamas to control it, have tacitly allowed others to provide economic aid to stabilize gaza, while at the same time there have been elements in this right-wing government that have been very public about their intentions about annexing large swaths of the west bank, making it part of israel, and pushing palestinians off that territory. again, those don't represent the views of the vast majority of israelis, but they do represent the views of some in this government. that all backfired on october 7. blaise made the comparison aptly to 1973. there is what is known as a concept that failed, that enabled israel to be unprepared for what egypt and syria did in

that war. there is a parallel by which the concept of netanyahu in where he would otherwise attempt the aute palestinian authority in certain ways while enabling hamas to control gaza really also backfired. which is not to put the responsibility of hamas' atrocities on this government. that's not what i am saying, but obviously in the way that it has chosen to pursue relations with the palestinian authority and hamas certainly plays a role in creating the conditions that enabled where we are today. host: jonathan, that's another catch-22 in an interesting way because play the reverse in your mind. imagine that if israel didn't allow tens of millions of qatari dollars to flow into gaza every month, imagine if israel didn't let gazans come in to work, imagine if every previous time hamas launched rockets into

israel, israel decide with the kind of ground incursion it is now conducting as opposed to limited air strikes. what would the accusation then the accusation would then be, you are needlessly attacking gaza. you are needlessly causing human suffering by not p assistance. so if they provide assistance, they're criticized for trying to keep hamas in power. if they wouldn't provide assistance, if they would try to crush them militarily they would be accused of overdoing it. i think instead what you saw was that israel much like the rest of the world after 2007 effectively did bury its head in the sand and say all right, hamas now runs gaza. the costs of going in and clearing it are too high. we will believe like the u.s. has believed about russia or about china that the process of ruling a territory, of being in power over time is going to moderate them, is going to make them feel responsiblfo people, m

invested in the well-being of the gazzen people and that will lead to the possibility of peace and that is the same process that has played out in our own foreign policies and i think is a much more rational inteption and a much more rational approach to the conditions they faced. imagine if in 2007 israel said hamas got rid of fattah, we invading and going to destroy hamas. what would the world's reaction have been then? i think they're holding them up to an impossible standard. >> i appreciate the attempt, but i would say it's important not to cherry pick certaints ensurie population in gaza is critical for israel's security. but it is also very clear that israel believed publicly that it had no partner for peace and then worked to disable or

otherwise not work to strengthen the partner in the palestinian authority while also promoting and allowing illegal settlements which then also created a lot of seiment among the palestinian position that the palestinian authority was not doing enough for them as well as not picking up the garbage on time or providing security, that pushed them to the camp of hamas simply as rejection for the palestinian authority for being seen for working for a government or with a gov,4ernment that was against palestinian interests. there is a lot to unpack there. host: gentlemen, i want to get to this text before we run out of time. i understand israel's need to defeat hamas' offensive capability but the only way to truly gain victory is to open the eyes of the gazan people to the damage hamas has done and continues to do to them. how will israel win the battle

for hearts and minds? that's richard in massachusetts. mr. lord, we will start with you. guest: i appreciate the question. this goes very much to some of the concerns that this administration, the biden administration, has made before both the israeli government, t s this fight. it cannot focus simply on a military defeat of hamas. hamas is an insurgent organization. it will find ways to recover. there must be a broader approach, whether it's israel, whether it's israel and the u.s., whether it's arab partners, but something must give to otherwise enable better ns to break the cycle of violence. there is no question about it. our experience in iraq speaks to this. we had a number of strategies, some worked, some failed, some worked in combination, but

myopically focused on war fighting and decapitation of hamas leaders is going to be insufficient both to provide necessary support for the pa long term to provide for israel's security. guest: i would very much second everything that jonathant is tht important question to be asked here. i would go even further. which have -- we have heard the israeli government talk about this. there will be a period of deradicallization in gaza. they have been ruled by hamas for the last 17 years. if you look at the educational textbooks that the gaza population, 50% of whom are upped the age of 18, that means 50% of the population in gaza, over one million people, have known nothing but hamas. they were educated and brought up by hamas. if you look at the textbooks that they use in their schools, all they talk about is the need to kill jews. we saw that on october 7, where

the attackers weren't just satisfied as jonathan said to rape, pillage and murder, they would call back to their parents and brag about how many jews they killed. so there is a problem here of first deradicallization and second making sure there isn't a further insurgency. i think looking at some of the examples from world war ii, when the u.s. attempted this in germany or japan are instructive but have limited analogies because how did the u.s. go about deradicallizing imperial japan? we had a u.s. military governor of japan until 1972 and i don't think the israelis, i don't thinkestinians, i don't think the world wants to have a 25 year dictatorship, israeli military dictatorship in gaza. d so i think putting this all on israel is a bit unfair because if it were up to israel to try to solve this problem, to provide security, to deliver

assistance, that would be the sort of occupation that no one wants. so there has to be a process in which the united states, israel's arab partners, international bodies like the u.n. come in and provide some of these svices, provide the conditions under which gaza can begin to be rebuilt. host: final call for this segment. clifton, texas, republican line. caller: hello. i would like to thank you for this show today. your guests are absolutely marvelous and spot-on. my question for them is why will no arab country accept palestinian refugees? if you can't get the food to the people who are starving, why not try getting the people who are starving to the food?

host: thank you. we're going to leave it there and start with blaise misztal, and then we'll go to jonathangun excellent question. and certainly with now over one million gazan refugees in rafa right on the egyptian border and the challenges of delivering aid inside of gaza. , bringing the refugees out into the sinai peninsula of egypt would make a lot of sense. but there's a lot of concerns. first and foremost, egypt is itself an economically struggling country. it would be concerned that many of those refugees would stay on it, that they would not go back. internationally, i think there's concern about creating another refugee population. within palestinian politics, there's concern that any attempt to remove them would be a form of ethnic cleansing and that they'd be prevent from returning.

so i think there's a lot of political distrust across the system that makes that extremely hard to even though i think that the u.s. putting more political capital into making a solution like that possible is the best outcome for the short term. host: the caller is from texas, so i would simply ask him aboutg migrants across the mexican border. there's a lot of space in texas, a lot of opportunity to feed hungry people. assumptions, but my guess would be the caller is probably not thrilled about that proposed policy. so, too, i think the egyptians and like to keep palestinians in what they deem as palestine. the palestinians here have a vote, too. they can't be forced to be displaced. that actually is against international laws, northbound as refoulment. but ultimately there is possibility to feed these people

where they are. it is a question of who will go in and distribute the aid. i wrote a piece in december, i'll admit it went over like a ton of bricks, making the case for a u.s.-led stabli■za work with partners both in the region and europe to do the stablization work, to work in areas that have been cleared by israel to provide the necessary aid to break the cycle, to begin the process of ending this conflict. not just combat operations, but the ideological piece as well. it's immensely difficult, but here we are. host: jonathan lord with the center for a new american security, and blaise misztal with the jewish institute for national security of america. gentlemen, thank you both for being on. i hope you'll come back. guest: thanks for having us. host: one more hour of public policy discussion this morning on the "washington journal." in about half an hour, we're going to be talking about

electronic vehicles and some of the biden administration proposals for e.v.'s. it's open forum. what public policy or political issue do you want to talk about? you can see the numbers there o. democrats, republicans, independents. just remember 202 is the area code for all of them. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. we'll begin taking those calls in just a few minutes. >> march 17, 1979, marked the 45th anniversary of c-span, which allowed americans to watch live coverage of the u.s. house

of representatives. to celebrate this special occasion, shop our c-span 45th anniversary sale going on right now at c-spanshop.org. save 25% on our best-selling items in apparel, there's something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right to shop. during c-span's 45th an verse are you sale, it's going on right now at c-spanshop.org. tonight on "q&a," book critic and "new york times" columnist carlos "the washington book," talks about the insights he got from reading the memoirs and official reports written by politicians and government officials in washington, d.c. >> when the latest special counsel report, the hur report,

when that came out it said something about how he would come across to a jury■ as a well meaning elderly man with a poor memory. one big thing in that book, in that report, was how he had supposedly not remembered the precise year that his son beau died. in the acknowledgments, there's something that speaks to that. thethe acknowledgment section in joe biden's "promise me dad," says this was a veryar year, or hard time period for me to look back upon, and as such some of my memories of the period are softened. >> carlos lozada with his book "the washington book," tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen on our free c-span now app.

>> in this latest book, they open with this introduction. this is a book of love letters. every one of them involved a president of the united states, and we will tell you their stories through the letters they wrote. the hoofers continued through this collection of carefully chosen letters, we reveal the writers at their most vulnerable, providing a surprisingly intimate andal porn obscured by the public persona. dorothy and thomas cooper's book is titled "aree storm of love m" >> the authors on this episode "book notes+." it's available on-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: for the next half-hour, it's open forum. what public policy issue is on your mind? we've talked about the israel-hamas war. we've talked about federal

spending. we're going to go through some other articles and talk about politics, etc. but if a public policy issue on your mind and you want to make a comment about it, we're looking forward to hearing from you. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002.■p now you can also send a text message, 202-748-8003. if you do so, please include your first name and your city if you would. and you can also participate and continue the conversation on social media on x and on facebook. let's begin with kim in carmichael, california, independent line. kim, what's on your mind this morning? caller: well, i want to talk about the things i want to say, i love c-span. i watch it every morning for the

last 15 years or more. and i want to say that out of respect i'm not antisemitic. i'll answer the question for myself. but it does puzzle me that when somebody talks pro israel, you never asked, are you anti-islamic. and i think that's part of the problem. we look at it as if somebody, because they're looking at a genocide happening, does that make me antisemitic. no, it doesn't. it makes me a human. the suffering there is very -- is being felt worldwide. you see it. it doesn't matter, when people sae 30,000 people have died, but that's what hamas says, it doesn't matter who's saying it, you know? let's just say it's 15,000. that's 1 too many. if the people in israel on october 7, if 107 is too many to

be murdered and raped and robbed and killed and children left as orphans. all of that's too many. and then 15,000 is too many. host: thank you, thank you for calling in and expressing your viewpoints. benny is in stockton, california, democrats line. hi, benny. caller: hello, good morning. my pet peeve is i'm a democrat. i vote democratic since, the first vote i cast for jesse jackson. and i'm seriously leaning towards trump. although trump says some outrageous things, but he's talking about closing the i've had two accidents in the last two years caused by hispanics. and because of that, they refuse to fix my car.

they do underhanded things. it's too so i'm seriously thinking about voting for donald j. trump because he will promise he'll close the border. the other thing is i just found out that black people do not have a right to vote every 10 years it's extended. we are americans. why do we not have the right to vote? host: benny, i'm not sure what yound point. caller: well, i was speaking with a gentleman yesterday, and every 10 years we have to be re-established to vote, and i just don't understand why, because we are americans. we should have the same rights -- host: i would suggest a little more investigation about that second point, benny. because unless you're talking

about the reauthorization of the voting rights act, i can't imagine any other possible reason that your friend would say that out loud. velma, ashland, kentucky, good morning. caller: thank you, good morning. benny, that's not true. if that were true, we would have heard a whole lot about it. you are right, you're an american, you have the right to vote, and don't believe that person that's talk you to you. anyway, unbelievable, people, illegal breaching fence, rushing the border agents, injuring them. did we ever think we'd see this? the president suing texas, because they're trying to enforce the laws and protect their people and their property. it's unbelievable. and that's going to get worse. host: velma, have you seen an

increase in the population in ashland that may be coming from the border? caller: i've seen -- well, tor n more foreign people in the area. i haven't seen any breaching the border. i'm not near the border. in our area, just same as anyone else's. by the time november 5 gets here, we're going to have how many illegals here. and then another thing, on israel, that gentleman was talking earlier about the 18-year-old students being taught to hate israel and this and that. well, these 18-year-old students are the children of the people that elected hamas and put them in power. hamas is palestinian. not all palestinians are terrorists, i know that. but much of the palestinian population voted them into office knowing what they are, knowing what they do, knowing what their goal is. most of what is happening over there is not israel's fault.

there is no perfect war. when one country invades another, like japan attacked pearl harbor years ago. host: that's velma in ashland, kentucky. this is marilyn on our independent line. # hi, marilyn. you with us? caller: yes. can you hear me? host: we are listening, please go ahead. caller: yes, i'm calling about the public policy issue of affordable housing. i want the federal government to take the same actions that they did for the returning g.i.'s after wod ii, where they made housing affordable for young families. i talked to so many people in other states, michigan, florida, other parts of the east coast, where people cannot afford housing, and i'm not talking about, you know, a mcmansion. i'm talking about a basic

starter house, $100,000, $150,000, an entry-level salary. what this country has allowed wall street to do to take over the housing market and be in the single family housing market, not apartments, which they've been in for decades, not conned owes and townhouses, it's ridiculous. i want know it why the federal government does not take this seriously. the $10,000 that biden threw out in the state of the union speech, give me a break. $10,000? i believe when g.i.'s came home from world war ii, the percentage that they were asked to pay for their first starter home, which wasrobably worth millions in the former orange groves of southern california now, was a lot smaller percentage than people are being asked to pay of their income now. host: you're calling in from san francisco, which is known for

its high housing costs. what's your situation? caller: my situation is that i actuallynherited property. i had some generational wealth in my family, and i inherited the housing situation where i live now, which i'm grateful for. and the state of california is very progressive and had been in previous years progressive about making sure people even on disability and such could afford housing with seconds eight vouchers and that sort of thing. there has to be a major focus the federal government on putting up subdivisions in the middle of the cornfields of iowa or something so people can afford housing. host: thank you. sharon is next, north bend, oregon, democrats line. sharon, you're on c-span. caller: good morning. i just wanted to remind everyone that donald trump and the people

that follow him did everything in their power to overturn a free and fair election. the disrespect for the voters was just incredible. and it hasn't stopped. they, for all practical purposes, promise more of the same, along with violence, and if anyone forgets for a moment that the republican party with donald trump in charge wants to take everyone's right to choose who the leader of our country is, they're just -- they can't forget it. they have to know it. i think it's very important for people to not be -- not think there's anything ordinary about that. there's nothing ordinary about that. host: that's sharon in north bend, oregon. in the new york "time" this

morning, a busy monday fo■r trump, as two court cases collide. donald j. trump is expected to spend monday morning in the courtroom of a new york judge who might soon preside over his criminal trial and ultimately throw him behind bars, and that's not even the legal predicament that worries mr. trump most that day. the hearing is in manhattan, criminal prosecution in which he's accused of covering up a sex scandal to pave his way to the presidency, comes as he races to fend off a financial crisis arising from a $454 million judgment in another case. the new york attorney general, will he tissue ajames, who brought that civil fraud suit suit against the former president and his family business might begin to collect as soon as monday. that's in the "new york times." now, in "the washington post," as trump faces deadline on bond, a few likely outcomes may await

him. number one, nothing happens immediat the appeals court generally issues rulings on tuesdays and thursdays, so there's very little chance he will act on monday on trump's request to waive the bond requirement if it doesn't and if trump doesn't post a bond by then, legal experts say there is nothing preventing leticia james from calling on the new york city sheriff's or on city marshals to begin seizing his assets. the second thing that could happen, according to "the washington post," leticia james moves to enforce. experts say she would probably start with the new properties, partly because the l.l.c.'s that own two of them, 40 wall street and his seven springs estate in west chester county, are defendants in the fraud case. james' office already has filed a first step toward seizing the seven springs property.

ed third thing that happens, trump finds the money. he could find a wealthy person to put up the bond. a person with trump's wealth with a bank, which is used to take -- which is used to take real estate as klatt roll to get a bond issued, but trump has few banking relationships remaining, records show, and limited access to banks makes getting a bond much more difficult. number four, according to "the washington post," the appeals court steps in. the easiest way out of this predicament for trump is to get a lifeline from the new york supreme court appellate division. trump's attorneys have asked that court to reduce, delay or waive the bond requirement. the court could say that trump does not need to post a bond at all unless his appeal is over and he loses, or the panel could allow him to post a smaller bond. and finally, trump files for bankruptcy, the post writes.

as the post detailed recently,en trump's camp recognize that filing for bankruptcy would probably push all these problems down the road by months or maybe years. trump wouldn't escape his debt to the court, and, in fact, interest would still continue to accrue, but the clock would stop ticking on his need to immediately put up a bond. that's in "the washington post." let's hear next from steve, who's in ridgeway, pennsylvania. steve is calling on our republican line. hi, steve. caller: good morning, peter. it's good to see you on the air again. i wanted to comment about the two gentlemen you had on talking about israel-hamas war, and it was one of the best significant ams i've seen on c-span in some time, thank you for that. another, the lady from california, she talked about the trump supporters and how there is, in her opinion, something wrong with them, and there's all sorts of assumptions of what, if

trump becomes president again, what will happen with america and it's a narrative that is pushed by many people, many people in government, too. i'm a trump supporter. and almost 99.999% of everything that i hear about what i believe and do is just totally 100% nonsense. and this extreme maga-type narrative that is pushed continually, especially by people like hakeem jeffries, he can't give a speech without saying extreme maga 15 times, it's disheartening. i think donald trump is getting railroaded to the extreme. it's ironic in using the word extreme, but we are in dangerous

times, america. and the idea that political inenemies are now just that, political enemies, and the department of justice and district attorneys and attorneys general across the nation are playing lawfare against people could lead to the ruin of our nation, and thank you for the time. pipe that's steve in ridgeway, pennsylvania. robert is next from augusta, georgia, independent. hi, robert. caller: yes, this is robert from augusta, georgia. you would count on the people's business in keeping things place money is done by money alone, but the improvement on it as it progressed, and also the border suddenly they rented out very fabulous buses, why they■h were

there for economic reasons and all the sudden the problems become less important and the people out there tried to earn incomes in our economy is starting to boom. host: robert, a apologize. we have to leave it there. if you get on, don't use a speaker phone. speak clearly. we want to be able to understand you, and so does everybody else. mike in brentwood, tennessee, democrat. mike, go ahead. what's on your mind this morning? caller:u yeah, i would just like to say all these people that are so mad about inflation and they say they're going to vote for trump, you mad about the inflation, well, just wait till -- i mean, they're mad about biden for the inflation. well, just wait till trump gets in. he keeps talking about putting anywhere from 60 to 100% tariff on everything from chi going

to do? even his own economists say that that's a terrible idea, and it's going to raise prices of everything through the roof. host: thank you, sir, for calling in. there's a site called real clear politics. don't kn if you're familiar with it, real clear politics.com is the site. one of their categories is polls, and every day they update polls. and here are some of the latest. they do it are the by state or by nationa and iusd in seeing some of the more recent polls. here's a michigan poll, where they have president trump up by three points. and another michigan poll where they have president trump up by two, and they have r.f.k. jr. in there as well. then they have a west virginia senate primary, west virginia governor. friday's polls, trump versus

biden in michigan. they have president trump up by eight points. pennsylvania, tied up at 46-46. and it goes on and on. in case you're interested in following the daily polling that's done, go to realclearpolitics.com. you'll see over on the left-hand side, where it says polls, just click on that, and you can follow along. john calling in from texas, republican line. hi, john. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. in case everybody forgot, the pilgrims that came to this side of the world looking for a place to worship their lord freely, well, if they look ahead now what's going on, there's no freedom in america anymore under the democrat party. and the most important thing for everyone to remember is to worship jesus wholeheartedly, because he's their only plan to salvation for this country, for any country.

and with a child is raised -- when a child is raised, what they're taught, is what they're going toontie the rest o their lives. folks need to recognize jesus. host: thank you, sir, for calling in. let'hear from steven in baltimore, democrat. hi, steven. caller: i just want to comment on the two gentleman that he had on in the previous segment. all you have to do to look at the future of this conflict and gaza is look to history. look to american history when the europeans came and took the land from native americans. did they fight that? yey did. you remember wounded knee. eventually they are going to kill enough palestinians so tt they'll be pushing them off the land. and so for those people who are

for this, for the starving of little kids, for the ethic cleansing that israel is doing, just remember that jesus tells you you were for it before you were against it. thank you. host: want to show you a couple more headlines here. this is from "the hill," and the biden campaign, everyone knows howt trump lives to give nicknames, but the wine campaign tests trump's name calling strategy by call him broke don. they're giving that a try out. and in "the wall street journal," msnbc has no plans toe network. msnbc has no plans to have former republican national committee chairwoman ronna niel on the cable network, it'll president told employees -- its president told employees following the news of her hiring at nbc news. rashida jones, the cable

network's president, has been seeking to address internal backlash in the wake of an internal friday announcement by nbc news regarding mcdaniel's hiring as an on-air contributor in that internal memo, the political chief said mcdaniel would contribute across all nbc news platforms, causing turmoil among several of the network's on-air hosts and staffers, people familiar with the matter said. rashida jones, the president of msnbc, told employees the planse mcdaniel on the channel, and that's in "the wall street journal" this morning. julian in englishtown, new jersey, please go ahead with your comment. caller: hello, how you doing? thanks for having me on. so i wanted to talk about, you know, sort of the divisiveness

of donald trump, and the problem i have with the ideology, they seem to be always voting against their best interests, when they say that they are for law and order, they vote a literal criminal, somebody who's been convicted of many crimes, defrauding many charities and such. and, you know, they say they support the police, but during donald trump's presidency, i believe he cut federal funding for local police by something like $200 million. host: all right, julian, thanks for calling in with your point of view. one more article from "the washington times," biden's ghost writer subpoenaed by house judiciary committee. house judiciary committee chair jim jordan has subpoenaed president biden's ghost writer

in an effort to get his recordings to prove that classified material was shared. this is in the "washington times" in case you are interested in reading it for yourself. half-hour left in our program this morning, and we're going to turn our attention to electronic vehicles, e.v.'s, with long-time auto reporter jeff gilbert of wwj newsradio in detroit. we'll be right back. >> tonight on "q&a," book credit and i can new york "time" columnist carlos lozada, of "the washington book," talks about the insights he glean from the reading the memoirs, political biographies and official reports written by politicians and government officials in washington, d.c. >> when the latest special counsel report, the hur report

looking into biden's handling of classified documents, when that report came out, it said something about how he would come across to a jury as a well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. and one big thing in that book was about, in that report was remembered the precise year that his son beau died. and in the acknowledgments, there's something that speaks to that. the first paragraph of the acknowledgment section in joe biden's "promise me dad," says this was a very hard year, or hard times period for me to look back on, and as such some of my memories of this period are not there. >> carlos lozada with his book tonight at 8:00 eastern on "q&a." listen to this and all of our podcasts on our free c-span anyway app.

c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here's a highlight from ament. >> just two weeks ago in the midst of a terrible tragedy on the potomac, we saw again the spirit of american heroism at its finest. the heroism of dedicated rescue workers saving crash victims from icy waters, and we saw the heroism of one of our young government employees, lenny, who, when he saw a woman lose her grip on the helicopter line dived into the water and dragged her to safety. >> c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: that's jeff gilbert of wwj radio on your screen, up in detroit. mrre going show

two headlines from this past week to our viewers. this is "the wall street journal" on the left. it says carmakers get more time to phase out gas engines. right now to it is a headline from "the washington post," u.s. sets tou■ñgh limits on gas cars. both of these headlines, lead stories last thursday. in can both of these things be true? guest: absolutely. i mean, that is what's happening here. you'll recall about a year ago, i think it was april of 2023, the government proposed some very strict emissions standards. in fact, they were talking about 60% e.v.'s early in the next decade. the car industry said, look, we're on the same page, we want to move to electrification, but it's going take time. so when the final rules were proposed, the end is still the same as we get into 2022, 2033,

but they pushed back the heavy lifting into early next decade. so car respects have a little more room to develop e.v.'s, but try to get e.v.'s with customers want, faster charging, less expensive, more range, things that nature. host: haven't both ford and g.m. up there in detroit pulled back on their e.v.'s? they're manufacturing, battery plants, etc. guest: yeah, they have pulled back in the short term, but not the long term. these standards pretty much reflect the fact that, ok, the e.v. market right now has gotten past the people who really wanted to have an e.v., the people who were waiting in line for one. well, those people have their vehicles. now they've got to sell electric vehicles to people who wl consider an e.v., but also consider a gaswed vehicle, that's a diff crowd. you've got t tho people why an e.v. might be right for

them. so that's a little bit more difficult. carmakers have pulled back a bit, but not the long-term coit host: last year, electric vehicle sales in the u.s., about 1.2 million e.v.'s were sold. that was up from 5.9%. do the new regulations buy the biden administration, or the new proposed reforms by the biden administration, outlaw in a sense gas-powered vehicles? gut: california has, for 2035, one of the the federal rules talk about emissions. and they only talk about emissions, but some very tough emission standards, and to get there, it will require a lot more electrification, but there's not a direct ban on electric vehicles. host: did any of the go through the congress, or was this all by executive or agency order? guest: this is regulatory. this is not a congressional

thing. this is an environmental protection agency regulation. host: we want to show some video. this is michael regan, who is head of the e.p.a., talking about■ú the new regulations. >> these technology standards for model years 2027 through 2032 will avoid more than seven billion tons of carbon pollution. that's four times the the total carbon pollution from the entire transportation in a ye 2021. transportation is the largest source of u.s. greenhouse gas emissions and thanks to these new technology standards, not only are we restoring america's position as a global leader against the fight for climate change, but we're also protecting the health of communities while doing so. cleaner vehicles and lower emissions mean so much to the people across this country. it means fewer hospital visits,

fewer premature deaths. it means fewer illnesses like lung cancer and heart disease. it means more healthy children and a healthier nation. and it also means new opportunities. we are witnessing a technological revolution driven by the markets. folks, this technology neutral and performance-based standard gives the auto industry the flexibility to choose the combination of pollution-controlled technologies best suited for their customers. let me be clear, whether it's battery electric, plug-in hydrid, advanced hybrid or cleaner gasoline vehicles, we understand that consumer choice is paramount. and the timing could not be more perfect. new tech knowledges have been advancing rapidly. battery costs are declining. consumer interest in e.v.'s is increasing. industry is investing heavily in

the cars of the future. host: jeff gilrt mr. regan talked about flexibility and choice, but we're going to play one more piece of video before we go to our viewers and their calls. the head of alliance for automotive innovation, which represents u.s. automakers, here's what he had to say about the w >> 2027 is just around the corner for automakers, and the reason we had strong views on the feasibility of the original proposal and what it required in terms of e.v. sales is because we know the challenges, a choppy e.v. sales market, public charging still coming online, new supply chains that must be built, all while preserving a customer's ability to choose the vehicle that works for them their family. we're in uncharted waters, right? we're all living through a technology revolution that will

transform personal mobility and auto communities and permanently change the country's industrial base. that's why our message was not whether this can be done. it can. but can and should it be done. that was the question. pace matters to automakers. it certainly matters to consumers. the right pace for something this consequential and transformative, like i said uncharted waters, gives us a chance to secure manufacturing and industrial base needed for long-term success. by the way, that's also to remal leader in auto manufacturing, to support economic posterity and safeguard our national security, too. these rules are the most consequential carbon-reducing policies in transportation history. they're also, this is important, much improved over what was

originally proposed. host: and we are back live with jeff gilbert. we'll to both of these pieces of video in just a second. we want to get the numbers up there so you can participate in our question. we're talkingbout electric vehicles and whether you support the biden administration's new regulations. 202-748-8000 is the number for you to call. if you are opposed, 202-748-8001. and if you own an e.v., we'd love to hear from you, 202-748-8002. jeff gilbert, we heard from the e.p.a. administrator. what did you hear? guest: yeah, i watched that ceremony as well. and let's start with mr. mozela. essentially what he is saying is, look, this is a lot better than what was originally proposed. we can live with it. but he never really embraced the rules. obviously they don't like it, but they understand that the

government sets a regulation. the government is around the world are moving t direction. and the auto industry realizes they do need to move in this direction as well. embrace would be accept is probably a better word. getting back to the e.p.a. administrator, you're in washington, when have you ever heard somebody not say that what their plan is is wonderful, is going to do all sorts of great things, save lives, save money, etc. will that happen? if they build vehicles people don't buy, then they can't have an impact on the environment. that is one issue that could get in the way of the. there are elections coming. they could change things. they could change plans. there could be als as we approach the end game that perhaps these might have to be revisited. but for right now, this is the goal the auto industry is moving toward. host: what has the auto

companies and the u.a.w. said about these new regulations? guest: yeah, the u.a.w. was very concerned early on, and that's endorsement of president biden. obviously this breathing room was enough to give them the endorsement. the union remains concerned about the transition to electric vehicles, whether or not it may cost jobs. they embrace emission standards, things of that nature, as long as it doesn't cost autoworker jobs. that's their prime thi. host: jeff gilbert, toyota has been very stro hybrids. is that the way, is that kind of a transitional step between internal combustion and full e.v.? guest: yeah, if you look at the market right now, toyota is looking very, very smart on this strategy. some other carmakers, volkswagen and g.m. in particular, had said, no, we've got to jump feet

first into electric vehicles. now g.m. is looking at hybrids as well. toyota has said all along that we can get a lot of hybrids out there quickly and have more impact short term. this makes that makes a lot of sense. for example, the latest toyota camry is going to be all hybrid. and we see that with the toyota sienn as well and the prius. they're moving heavily. the other issue is carmakers are spending a lot of money developing plug-in hybrids, vehicles that are kind of a cross it would be an e.v. and gasoline-powered vehicle. they will go short distances on pure electric mode. you can possibly commute on that, recharge the vehicle. but if you want to take a longes in. if you want to look at what california is doing with their gasoline powered vehicle bany 2035, a plug-in hybrid that gets more than 50 miles in pure

electric mode can still be sold in california after toe 35. watch that space. host: as goes california, so goes the nation. is that true when it comes to electric vehicles? guest: certainly, last week another headline was stelantis signed d will accept california's standards voluntarily. a number of other carmakers did that as well. you'll recall that the trumpúf■i administration challenged those standards, and some carmakers joined in that challenge. well, the biden administration supports those and all o carmakers had to walk that back. so for the most part, they've agreed with california to in doing that, california is setting things up if there's another trump administration to say to carmakers, hey, you've agreed to accept our standards. host: the c.e.o. of ford back

tracked quite a bit on electronic vehicles recently, didn't he? guest: backtracked, revise is probably a better word than backtrack. by the way, jim farley explained, the c.e.o. of ford explained why he did that. ford kind of jumped in with bot feet very fast. expand the plant that's making f-150 lightning, and then they realized the market isn't there yet. so what farley has said is we're developing more e.v.'s long term. we're changing strategy to try to get more lower cost e.v.'s out quickly, but for now, we will build the demand, because carmakers are still losing money for the most part on electric vehicles, and they don't want to get into a situation where they're overstocked and they have to put more discounts on and lose even more money. host: ray is calling in from napa, california, he's an e.v. owner. ray, tell us your experience. caller: i love my electric car.

i got my driver's license in 1974, so i've been driving a while f. they would have had electric cars back then, i would have bought one in a second. guest: can i ask which e.v. you have, ray. caller: i have a nissan leaf. it has a limited range of 100 miles, but i've learned to live with it. if i need to go somewhere far, i either take transportation or rent a car. but as far as just most people don't drive over 40, 50 miles a day, and that was my car, my commute to work an back. it works out really well. the maintenance cost has been absolutely zero. all i've done to it in 30,000 miles in three years is rotated the tires and windshield washer fluid. and here where i live, a lot of the city parking lots all have free charging. so i don't even have to pay for the electricity most of the time. host: ray, did you get a good tax break of any kind when you bought your leaf? guest: yes, i did. i got a tax break, not only from the state and federal government, i also got a rebate

from pg&e to put in the charging plug. if people have a 220 power electric dryer in their garage, they're already set up for an he have and he have don't even know it. that's basically a level two charger. host: thank you, sir, for calling in. jeff gilbert, along with ray's tweet that we just got, which is e.v.'s don't work in rural america. i presume that's because of distance. guest: the thing right now is, what is your lifestyle? if you're thinking about buying an electric vehicle, what is your lifestyle? how many miles do you drive? where do you go? what do you do? a person like ray who just does short commutes with it and is willing to rent a different vehicle for a longer trip, hey, that works perfectly for him. i can think of a time of my life would have worked for me. well, now i spend a lot of time on the road. i go a lot of different places.

it would be in my lifestyle a little more difficult. so a lot depends on what you're doing in your lifestyle, because if you up don't have public charging network that much, works great to charge your vehicle at home and you never have to go to a gas station, never have to go anywhere else. host: steven, capitan, new mexico, please go ahead. caller: good morning, yes. as far as i'm concerned, this green thing is the biggest riff that america has ever seen. they're going to want to put these charging stations every -- oh, let's just say 20 miles out here in our beautiful country, which they've already decimated with their great, big windmills, which they put in the ground after they break. there is no environmental benefit to having these things. they have trashed out our

beautiful scenery. now they want to put electric power stations every so often. how many of these are going to be around the united states? they're going to trash out the country. and the electric just doesn't work, not in this country. we're a big country, and we don't need a charging station every 10 miles to look at. host: thank you, sir, for calling in. jeff gilbert, any comments for that caller? guest: you've heard the two arguments on both sides, the most passionate arguments back and forth. i mean, it's up to an individual to make their own decision. in terms of e.v. charging stations, i don't quite understand how that messes up the countryside, because we have gasoline station as well, so it's not like they're eyesores. they're kind of small. but, you know, there are the issuesnge. there are the issues with recharging. but the good news is there are a lot of people who are very smart who are working on those issues,

and some point it's possible wet get the recharging time close to where it is with a gas loon powered vehicle, and that would make e.v.'s a lot practical for a lot of people. host: mr. gilbert, how far have we come when it comes to battery range? in the last 10 years, how have batteries been improved, and is there any breakthrough coming where we wouldn't have to worry about 200, 300 miles of range? guest: yeah, it's interesting, ray, the first caller, talked about his nissan leaf, and really around 200, 2010, there bees, the first nissan leaf was considered the first modern electric car. there were a lot of other e.v.'s before that, but that's the first one that really started the modern era. and you could barely get 70 to 80 miles miles of range is prety much the price of entry. we're getting some with three. we're getting some with 400

miles. that's still good. we've cut recharging time down to where many vehicles can get 80% charge in a half-hour. so you can see where the improvement has come. they're not yet to where gasoline-powered vehicles are, but they are making a lot of headway on these issues. host: next call is gary in houston, hi, gary. caller: good morning. i had a question, a few years back i went to a race, a solar-powered car race in austin at the f1 track out there, and all the major universities not their own cars. it was interesting, they were all solar-powered vehicles. all the universities there, they did a great job.

is there a way to have an internal charging option to where they can go in that direction? i don't know if that's something you'd be familiar with, but it sure seemed like. host: mr. gilbert, what do you think? guest: they've been working, this solar car competition has been going on for about 30 years. at this point, if you look at some of these solar cars, they're not practical. they're pretty much all solar panels, very aerodynamic, maybe one person can fit in them. but they're meant to demonstrate what you can do. there is, i believe, i believe it's a hybrid version of the hyundai santa faye that has solar panels on it. that adds some electricity. not santa faye, i'm sorry, it's a hyundai sonata hybrid, and it will add some power with accessories, like the radi of t. but as of yet, solar panels are not to the place where they can

totally recharge a battery on an electric vehicle. but again, as i talked about e.v.'s, you're seeing a lot of breakthroughs. host: next call, james in spring lake, north carolina, who owns an e.v. james, what do you drive? guest: i drive a tesla. host: what do you think of it? guest: i think the world of it.. started out in 2019 with a model 3, and after driving that for about six months i moved on to the modea.oes the model x, is tt the one that has -- is that a hybrid or fully electric? guest: fully electric. it's got the gold it. the doors open up. host: right, how far have you been age to go -- have you ever run out of electricity while iving? guest: no. i'm about 50 miles, i'll hit a the closest tesla charging me to

station. or if i'm driving long and don't pay any attention, it will reroute me to a charging point. it's an amazing vehicle. guest: james, key ask you a tion? guest: sure. guest: this is your second tesla. have you ever test driven or considered an e.v. from another brand, hyundai and kia have some wonderful e.v.'s, some of the domestic ones we talked about, model x, a luxury vehicle, mercedes or b.m.w. have you looked at any of the others, and if not, why not? caller: i looked at kia for the simple fact that kia can charge other vehicles, oh electric vehicles. that's the only reason i looked at them.

but as far as tesla goes, tesla has over 50,000 charge points out there. i can go 50 miles and find a charge point. and as long as they control the charge point, that's the only one i would go with. host: thank you, james. jeff gilbert, is there a push to make these chargers universal? guest: yes, that was a point i was going to make. many car companies have cut a deal with tesla where their owners can access the tesla charging network. now, tesla has historically used a different kind of charging system, with a different kind of connector. the industry as a whole is starting to move toward the tesla style connector. carmakers are creating adapters, so you'll see in the near term more and more automakers where their e.v.'s can access a tesla.

host: we have this tweet from steve. does an e.v. company like or n1i apologize, which switches out batteries at switch stations have any future in the u.s.? it sounds like a good idea. guest: it's a chinese carmaker. and there's been talk about battery swapping. i'm not saying it can't happen, but you understand the batteries are a ton or even larger, so it's not like flipping out the batteries in your cell phone. if you don't have an iphone or radio or anything like complex,e batteries have complex cooling systems, things of that nature. so it's possible, and again, if you're swapping them out, you can see how big, you'd need a warehouse on site to store other batteries so you could swap them out.

it's not impossible, but it's not easy. host: nicole in california, another e.v. owner. caller: hi, good morning, thank you for taking my call, and thank you for this topic. i have a kia nero plug-in hybrid. i feel like at this time i would not want anything other than for my circumstances a plug-in hybrid, because the mileage that it gets under the electric is little, and i live in a condo, so in my building, there's no place to charge. i actually have to go three blocks down the street to charge my car, hope that there's a space there for me to park and there's only two chargers there. you know, i can't necessarily park at my job and charge it. and i wonder, you know, for the people, the millions of people who live in apartment buildings, how are they going to create enough chargers so everybody is able to charge their car, and then the range, the distance that people can go in an electric vehicle, if you're driving from san francisco■@ to

l.a., where are the chargers in between? i normally wouldn't even stop driving for a break at that point, but i would need to if i was driving that distance, almost in most of the cards. and the cars are really not affordable. i'm going to get another kia, because even though i would like a volvo, they're so expensive, it's really unaffordable for a lot of people. host: jeff gilbert? guest: yeah, price is an issue. you are seeing some price cuts, but there's still more expensive in most cases than a conventional gasoline-powered vehicle. in terms of charging at apartments, that's a major issue. that's one of the reasons car companies and the government want to expand the number of public chargers. there are some utilities who are here in michigan. one of the utilities is giving subsidies to apartment buildings who want to add a charging station.

but it's still developing and has not been fixed. host: jeff gilbert, how long have you been covering the auto industry? guest: i've been covering the auto industry exclusively since 2005, and pretty steadily since about 1997. host: that said, is this the biggest transformation in autos that you've ever seen? guest: oh, certainly, and i think it's the biggest story that we cover every day, because it touches everybody in terms of what kinds of vehicles you're going to be able to buy, whether you want to make the switch, whether you want to stay with gasoline-powered vehicles, and the pace of change. the pace of change is amazing. as i mentioned, ford, two years ago they were expanding a plant to make more f-150 lightning. now that plant is working at half capacity. so it's a story that changes every d gilbert, wwj news radio, auto reporter, we appreciate your time as always here on c-span. guest: it was a pleasure. host: and that does it for us

today here on the "washington journal." we'll be back at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. thanks for being with us. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]■4