meaningful improvement unless there is strong oversight and intervention by the faa. that culture change simply isn't going to come without a significant push by the faa. and that safety plan contains recycled information and more promises. empty commitments boeing has made for years. for example, testimony to the ntsb confirmed that the, quote, key performance indicators, which you mentioned, are comprised of data that boeing has had and tracked for years and the faa reached a settlement agreement with boeing in 2015 that included many of the same -- exact same commitments. boeing is simply recycling its safety plan. why does the faa think boeing

will do anything different if it's simply recycling the same promises an commitments? >> it's a valid question and i ethink it's not surprising that it's some of the same kpis because it's some of the same problems that existed at boeing that existed before. that's why we're doing things differently this time with the inspectors on the ground, with k pishgss and the production caps and, of course, the department of justice is also looking at installing a monitor to ensure compliance, so we are aware of the failures last time and previous times and we intend to hold them to this. >> well, what i would appreciate from you is an action plan. a set of requirements that maybe look like they can't be fulfilled under the current

trajectory of quality and safety. because they are more demanding than business as usual. i think that the business as usual approach, the reactive approach, is doomed to failure. and you have opportunity, in fact, a moment here, as still a few administrator dealing with a fanew world for boeing, becauset is a company that is staring into the abyss of possible failure. and it's a crisis of its own making, not the thousands of de hardworking, skilled, people on the assembly lines, but its managers and, in fact, those workers on the assembly line

deserve better and so does the traveling public because even if they are close to highly skilled production at this point, the traveling public may still have doubts and that will undermine the confidence of airline travel as a whole. so i am hoping that we can hear from you about more specifics. some of it you promised to provide. i am still looking for alternatives to oda. i know that the faa has revoked boeing's ability to issue air worthy certificates for the 737 and 787 aircraft, meaning that at the end of each aircraft's assembly process, you, the faa, not boeing, oda employees,

decide whether to allow the aircraft to enter service, but i still have serious concerns about the independence of boeing's oda. the independents. to the their skills or confidence, but their objectivity and independence if they're paid by boeing even when the faa performs the final inspection. what i don't understand, maybe you can explain, how can faa air worthiness inspection, at the end of all the manufacturing process, catch problems that occurred during the build process on the assembly floor if they're not detected in realtime at that point? >> well, there's a fairly extensive checklist that they go through with each aircraft so that does include some invasive testing and examination, particularly being able to get

underneath the passenger area and up above they're able to do a pretty thorough inspection. >> i'm also still concerned about whistleblower protections. i think the faa needs to do more and do it anmore quickly and mo effectively. we've talked a little bit about how it can. and i'm hopeful that the information about audits an whether there's prior notice will be forthcoming and you agreed to provide it. i think that none of us want boeing to fail on the contrary. we want boeing's success. we need it as i said earlier. the faa has a vital role if safety as you well know, but i think being more aggressive an proactive and forcing a change

in culture means the faa sometimes has to be the bad guy here. it has to compel change. and make sure that we're not just recycling past commitments and promises that have proved to be empty at the end of the day. thank you very much. really appreciate your being here. the ranking member promised that we wouldn't beat up on you, and we are on the same team. i hope. insofar as we have the same objective but our investigation will continue and we hope the faa will be a positive partner in this effort. >> absolutely, sir. we will do that and we've got a list to follow up so we'll communicate with your staff. >> thank you. this record will remain open for

15 days.er for additional comments or questions. senator butler indicated she may have some and my other colleagues as well. my thanks for being here administrator whitaker. thank you. with that the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] we are waiting for white house press secretarying karine jean-pierre to begin her briefing with reporters. it's expected to begin shortly. m hartman, the host of the tom hartman program is a live nationwide daily which airs monday welcome back.

joined by tom hartmann host of the tom hartmann program live nationwide daily that airs monday through friday on siriusxm radio. welcome to washington journal. >> good morning. thank you for having me. >> thank you for getting up early for us. what was your take on the outcome of the election? >> my concern is that we are essentially sliding into oligarchy. seven or eight years in my program president carter's pointing to citizens united when the supreme court basically said that bribery of politicians is now legal because money is the same thing as free speech and corporations the same thing as people. that it would be possible for very, very wealthy people to basically buy elections an politicians and now we have a billionaire coming in as president, we have the richest man in the world coming in kind of like his number two, and both of them have spent the last couple of years, apparently,

[ inaudible ] with vladimir putin and viktor orban. viktor orban, the kind of semi dictator of hungary, even came over to speak at cpac in dallas a couple years ago, two years ago, and, you know, laid out what he had done in hungary within a year of his second election, his re-election. he had basically destroyed all the independent media. i mean people post on facebook against him and they go to jail. i'm very concerned about that's the direction we're heading now when you get people like kash patel who, you know, have trump surrogates saying we're coming for you in the media. i'm very concerned that jimmy carter's prophecy is coming true. we're going to have a government of, by and for the very rich. >> yet republicans and donald trump in particular, showed a lot of gain in this election

including among people across demographic groups. he gained with latino voters and with white women. what -- how do you explain some of those gains? >> you know, i used to work in advertising 40 years ago. i owned an advertising agency in atlanta. and if you beat people over the head with a message often enough, with enough money and enough saturation, you can largely convince them of anything. kamala harris never once mentioned trans people during the campaign, and has never really been a champion of trans people. she had that one interview many years ago where she talked about trans people getting surgery in jail. that's certainly not her position now. she walked that back years ago. but the trump campaign and mostly the very, very large super pacs that are funded were funded to the tune of literally

over $100 million each by multiple right wing billionaires, poured so much advertising into, in particular, in the swing states, arguing that that was her entire agenda basically, was, you know, hey, let's elevate trans people, that, you know, a lot of people bought it. i mean which is perfectly understandable. advertising works. it's the reason why most commercial television networks and newspapers still exist. if it didn't work they wouldn't be around. so i think that the narrative was taken by this, you know, i understand there's roughly about 150 billionaire families who threw most of the money that was behind trump into this campaign, and, of course, they're looking for tax cuts and those who are

in business in a big way, particularly in the polluting industries like the fossil fuel industry, they're looking for deregulation and more subsidies, subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of billions of dollars a year and they want more. it certainly looks -- i mean, putting fossil fuel lobbyist in charge of the interior department, for example, which trump just announced, it certainly looks like they're going to get -- their investment will pay back. my big concern is that this department of government efficiency that musk and ramaswamy are supposed to run, you know, there's talk that they want to carefully evaluate our entitlements program which is social security and medicare and medicaid. i don't think that average americans realize how bad it could get. i don't know that it will. but, you know, there are -- there are some problysome

practical political mi they can do but i'm concerne >> i want to pull up a chart looking at some of these ars where trump gained voters, inuding as we talked about 46% of latino vors backed trump up from 7 points in2020. trump won lano men 55% to 43%. won among white women 53% to 45%. t in particular look at these last two. non-college grutss 56% voted for trump and 64% of rural americans supported trump. why did democrats struggle with these groups non-college graduates and rural america? >> i think, you know, again, to go back to the massive advertising that wasn't limited to television and radio, by the way, it was also the social media presence and, of course, elon musk tweaking his algorithms to promote right wing

messages, suggesting that because the democrats have traditionally been the party that defended the average working person, you know, joe biden was the first president in the history of america to walk a picket line, it was democrats who brought us the five-day work week and 40-hour workweek, the weekend, unemployment insurance, medicare, medicaid, all those things, but also democrats have, since the '60s, been the party that has defended racial minorities and since the '80s defended defended gender minorities. a caricature of democrats and the democratic party which i mentioned a minute ago going after kamala harris has been created that this just absolutely massive right wing ecosphere that has emerged since the '80s. you've got three television networks funded by right wing billionaires one of them a

foreign billionaire, fox news, you've got 1500 right wing radio stations. we have 300 right wing radio stations that broadcast in spanish. this is new. this came up just in the last four years. you've got 700 or 800 christian stations that have in many cases kind of abandoned talking about jesus and started talking about politics. churches where they're ignoring the irs law and reaching politics from the pulpit. it's this mass accumulative effort and nothing like that on the left. we've never developed a strong, you know, we have air america for about five years and i was on air america, and in 2008, you know, there was a -- kind of a broad consensus that air america

helped barack obama get elected -- glue while you -- i don't know if you want to grab a drink of water or something. >> i'm good. >> i want to read something -- i'll go back to something you mentioned, since the 1960s, the democrats have been the party that's that supports racial my norties according to your assessment but also i want to look at this chart here about the distribution of white voters in particular. the democrats have not won the vote amongst white americans since 1964 overwhelmingly over the years white voters have voted republican and democrats lost support among white voters since barack obama in 2008, and what do you think that means for the future of the party and the party's dynamics. i think what that reflects is the deep racism that is still among white people in america.

the trump presidency and even his successful campaign in 2016 frankly shocked me. i'm a white guy. i grew up with white people. and i, you know, knew that white racism is out there and, you know, i heard the jokes and slurs as a kid and all that kind of thing, but i never realized how broad and deep it is. 1964 was the year lyndon johnson put forward the civil rights act and it passed congress. it was the end of apartheid in the united states. i'm old enough that i remember as a little kid, you know, seven or eight years old, my parents taking me to the -- i grew up in lansing, michigan, to the fanciest hotel in town and nice restaurant and for their anniversary when 7 or 8 years old they took us to -- my brothers, and i to dinner there, and i remember the sign on the side of the building that pointed to the colored entrance

in the 1950s. that ended in 1964. that was when -- and over the next five years you saw all these southern democrats strom thurmond, jesse helm, all these guys flip and become republicans because the republican party was not in a big way taking a position on this. barry goldwater ran for president in '64, opposed the civil rights act. his argument was that this is the job of the states, not the federal government. the old states rights arguments. when ronald reagan ran for president in 1980 the first speech he gave as an official candidate of the party was in mississippi the site of the murder of three civil rights workers, sherwarmer, cheney and goodman and his speech to an all white audience was about states rights which was, you know, code back then for we never should have passed that dam civil rights act and go back to

apartheid in the united states. it's been pretty much that way ever since and trump has pled down on it. i don't have an explanation beyond -- for this very, very clear racial divide that has existed beyond just shocking reality that at least half of white america and arguably a little more than that is just deeply racist. >> we're taking your calls for questions for our guests. democrats call in at 202-748-800, republicans 202-748-801 and independents 202-748-8002. areas where democrats have lost votes and what kind of coalition democrats could potentially create moving forward given what they've learned. pete davis co-founder of the democracy policy network wrote in the nation after the election on real onships with ocused less

fellow neighbors and local chapter leaders and emphasized fundraising and celebrities. i'll read a bit re of that. instead of funding itself primarily through membership due, the democratic party offers fancy events for the wealthy and creaseless disrespectful text r threst of us. relationships with leities and politicians are emphasized over real relationships th fellow neighbors and ca chapter leaders. when you go to democrats.org clicking take action does not direct you to a page with your local democratic meeting times and locations. the boldled call to action button on the home page is donate, not join. what do you see as the future for how democrats can create a new coalition for themselves? >> i think that's a very legitimate critique, and it echos one that i've made many

times over the years. what happened was in 1978 lewis paul, nixon put him on the supreme court, authored a supreme court decision, first national bank versus balati in which the supreme court ruled for the first time in a big way that money is -- that because corporations don't have a mouth f they witness to speak, they have to use money. so money is the same thing as free speech and protected by the first amendment, and the corporations are persons and so they're entitled to rights under the constitution, under the first amendment, and that kind of floated ronald reg gone into the white house in 1980 on an ocean of oil money by and large but also confronted the democratic party with a crisis. how do we do fundraising? how can we win elections if elections going forward are about money? so in '92 the clinton campaign largely embraced reagan's near

liberal positions and started going for wealthy people, wealthy funders and embracing, you know, hot shot bankers and things like that, and that's -- that continued right up until the election of joe biden. biden -- excuse me -- pardon me -- i'm so sorry -- joe biden was really the first democrat since '92 to have repudiated near liberalism, the idea of reducing the size of unions, cutting taxes on wealthy people and free trade, you know, allowing corporations to go anywhere they want to get the cheapest labor and -- but, you know, both clinton and obama did and the democratic party is still largely a near liberal party. still largely embracing that, although the progressive caucus in congress have said we're not going to take corporate money not begging rich people for money. we're going to be here just for

the people. but i think that's a very legitimate critique of the democratic party and they really need to get their grassroots act together and they need to become the party of the bottom 90% and, you know, stop with, you know, the movie stars and billionaires. i think that probably kamala harris campaigning with beyonce and mark cuban a billionaire and liz cheney a republican, i don't think any of those things helped her, frankly. >> let's get to your calls john in norfolk, virginia, on our independents line. >> caller: i want to ask you a question sir if the vote is supposed to be unanimous, how do the polls come up with a percentage of people who voted for who like 63% of white people voted for donald trump? how do you come up with those numbers if the vote is supposed

to be unanimous >> what do you mean unanimous. >> caller: secret ballot. nobody is supposed to know who you voted for. how do you all come up with these numbers like percentage of people who voted for who? >> yeah. they do it with what -- what are called exit polls where you stand outside polling places and as people are coming out you ask them who they voted for. and the people who are willing to answer more questions they'll ask them how much do you make and where do you work and things like that. and, you know, exit polls are actually surprisingly accurate. they're used around the world. so that's principally how they came up with those numbers. >> okay. carl is in michigan on our line for democrats. good morning, carl. >> caller: hey, good morning. good to talk with you, tom. fan of your show and your books that i've read. as far as the rich people an celebrities i want to call

everybody out. both [ inaudible ] but what i want to throw out there for the audience [ inaudible ] to talk about a little bit, just a few things i jotted down. freedom will destroy america, freedom of speech, the cesspool known as social media, freedom to bear arms. average of three guns per adult in this country. we're killing each other every day. freedom of slash from religion. congress and the supreme court forcing religion into public schools in curriculum and book bans, public [ inaudible ] schools -- >> your line keeps dropping. >> caller: dark big money manipulating elections. i'll only be a money. freedom of markets, eliminate pension, pushing back regulation, protecting workers and consumers, shipping labor overseas to increase stock prices buyback, ceo profits, freedom of press slash media.

to lie to us divide us manipulate us and insult us. >> all right. tom, do you have any response to those ideas that were just laid snout. >> yeah. back in 1936, franklin roosevelt famously said, ness tus men are not fre men. you're not free if you're hungry. you're not free if you don't have a job, a place to live. you're not free if you're capable of getting an education an can't. and that's been a mantra essentially for the democratic party ever since, that, you know, opportunity and freedom are interchangeable. republicans on the other hand have been saying that, you know, you're not free if you don't have a gun. you're not free if you have to pay tax, particularly if you're very, very rich, and, you know, this word freedom which has a