standards was an undue burden. vladimir putin has called on separatists to provide an escape route for troops trapped in the southeastern part of the country. senegal became the fifth country to report the outbreak of the ebola virus. more of these headlines and more on "washington journal." should president obama take executive action on immigration?

this comes after he failed to procure funding from congress. is this the right step? you can call us on our republican line at (202) 585-3881. democratic line at (202) 585-3880. independent line at (202) 585-3882. a special and we set up for illegal immigrants at (202) 585-3883. you can also reach us on social oria at twitter, facebook send us an e-mail. joining us first to lay out the current state is emma dumain. thank you so much for waking up with us this morning. emma? are you on the line? caller: i'm here.

thanks for having me on. host: can you start piling out for us what we can expect to see from congress when they come back from recess in september? caller: they only have a few days between the time they get recess to campaign and get ready for the midterm elections in november. they will have some must pass pieces of legislation still on their plate. the continuing resolution to fund the government when current funding expires at the end of september. what is already talk of would happen if obama took executive action on immigration. trigger aat would government shutdown by members who want to counteract those executive orders and a stopgap

spending bill. host: what are some of the options the president might be considering in terms of big-ticket of action -- executive action? caller: what we are expecting to -- it was supposed to be at the end of the summer and now it's likely to be in the middle of september -- mostly orders to deal with curbing the number of deportations of undocumented immigrants. there is a 2012 executive order order that granted states deportation to the people known as dreamers. people brought here legally by their parents. there is pressure on obama to reach to protect the

family of those undocumented immigrants as well. and potentially set up some so they have the ability to stay. host: in terms of the about theve concern potential action of the president, how likely is it that there will be a government shutdown? caller: there are more republicans now than there were at this time last year who say that shutting down the government was not a politically advisable move. especially this close to an election here especially within one year of the last one. last time, we had not seen one in over a decade. there was somewhat of a novelty to it. --ing won within 355 days of

it would be easy for democrats to turn the narrative into this republican fault. it would be shocking, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. there are many republicans who are very angry with the president from a very angry with what they are calling executive angry with the president, angry with what they're calling executive overreach. part of the package was adding language to stop the expansion of the program. it is all going to depend on how

many members want that to happen and what sort of pressure hner and others receive. host: there is debate over how to push this issue. are those wary of a government shutdown, what are the options to them? is there any likelihood of broader immigration reform being taken up? 140 congress, i had the opportunity -- 114 congress, i to speak tortunity paul ryan and we had a conversation about whether immigration reform was a thing .hat could happen is congress especially given that republicans need to make good

with the latino voters. congressman ryan acknowledged that immigration reform is important and he wanted it to happen this year. acknowledged that there is republican distrust in the president to enforce the law. as long as republicans are leery of the current administration, he is not sure if it can happen. control iste recaptured by republicans and you have a republican capitol hill, that could make it easier to advance immigration reform legislation when both chambers are more on the same page. when they are not worry about -- worried about getting pressured enate democrats.

he said if obama takes executive action, it would "poison the law." for yournk you so much insight this morning. i really appreciate it. taking yourstart phone calls. our first caller is reggie from indianapolis on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. is very important and i don't think the president needs to do anything as far as executive action. at least, not at this point. he should have the senate forced this issue him pass the bill .hey want passed get conservatives or republicans on record voting against or for this.

push it to the house, make the house vote on it. if they refuse , make sure republicans are aware of what's going on. get the republicans on record and the conservatives, whether ,hey be in the senate republican or democrat come on record. go forward with the next election and try to get some of these people in congress that will work with one another as opposed to this bad reputation. host: what do you think should be done about illegal immigrants in this country? do you think they should be allowed to stay for a period of time or be deported? i believe -- i don't necessarily know what's going on with that.

i know they are not going to ship them back. they are going to have to work out something. in order to do that, they're going to have to work together. if they don't work together, it is going to be a lockdown. roll up theirust sleeves and get in there and work together and deal with comprehensive immigration policies. mike even george w. bush reposed and wanted -- like even george w. bush wanted. host: brad on a republican line. caller: obama can do whatever he wants to with executive action, but in november, everybody knows. they will just undo what he did. immigration -- every country has the right to regulate their policy. it is wrong to let them stay. camped take care of all the

rest of the world -- we can't take care of all the rest of the world. we have to take care of our own first. scottour next caller is on the independent line calling from new york. my name is scott. i'm of the human party. we have to do something. one thing the government could do is they could stop allowing the millions of dollars that are getting sent every week from money gram and western union -- we need to stop these illegals going to walmart and sending money back to their countries. that money does not come back here. it is untaxed.

that money is used to pay the coyotes to get them across the border. the mexican mafia is the only a damper one put the illegals coming across the border because the hondurans and the venezuelans are all afraid to get caught by the mexican mafia crossing the united states border because the mexican mafia will stop them and sometimes kill them or send them back home. host: scott arguing for a stronger regulation of financial flows between the u.s. and central american countries. the new york times reporting obama may president actually delay his decision on any executive action. reports --er

is what president obama had to say on this issue. [video clip] >> it would have helped if congress had loaded for the supplemental i asked for. they did not. we have to make some executive choices about getting more immigration judges down there. that has kept us busy.

it has not stopped the process of looking more broadly about how do we get a smarter immigration system in place while we are waiting for congress to act. it continues to be my belief i need to do at least what i can in order to make the system work better. do affectese timelines and we are going to be working through as systematically as possible to get these done. have no doubt, in the absence of congressional action, i will do what i can to make sure the system works better. host: should president obama take executive action on immigration? call us, tweet us, e-mail us. our next caller is joe from woodstock, georgia. is that, if hece

takes any executive action at all, it should be deportation. we are a nation of laws. i don't think we should allow anyone who is not a citizen of in andted states to come force us to change our laws in order to accommodate them. we have native americans and african americans who have been pushed to the back of the line simply because these illegal immigrants are coming in and taking the jobs they rightly deserve. if we are going to allow them to stay, we are going to end up as california, arizona , where they have taken care of all of these people at the detriment of our educational system and the detriment of our jobs system. it is deplorable what's going on. he needs to take some action to stop the flow. the: you're calling on

democratic line. you think this is something that might be worth shutting the government down over? caller: i don't think they need to shut the government down. they need to do something to address this issue in order to asp the flow and stop this it relates to trying to force our government to accommodate them. , there are a is lot of democrats i'm aware of who say if the president does or theyey may not vote may change parties. host: we heard your call, joe. our next caller is norma from new york. you're on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment on the fact that congress is never going to cooperate with this president. i have lost all hope.

at every turn, he can't even wear the right suit. and they't sneeze wouldn't comment about he's not allowed to sneeze or something like that. it's horrible. could fire that we congress whenever they don't work. if you don't do your job in most jobs, you would get fired. then they have to months off. i would love to have a job like that. i don't do my job all the time and then i can go into months vacation. apart andis falling they don't care. the only thing they care about is how much money someone is getting or whatever. even john boehner said he was going to sue the president and wants to sue him because he took executive action and then if they don't do their job and they say he can do it on his

own. what is it? one thing or the other. they have made it their business to not work with the president of matter what. yes, i still vote because i'm a citizen. when i go to the voting booth and i put in my vote, there is nothing in me that says things are going to change or whatever because these people have said thatthe very beginning their main objective was to defeat the president. you have to work with the president. he has tried so hard to put so many people back to work. twitter, one commentor says another writes our next caller is wanda on the democratic line. caller: i don't think the

president should make an executive order. i do believe congress should sit down and do their jobs. i don't understand why the american people are upset or enraged. be upset about american ipping your jobs away. them to do otherwise. it's just a distraction come anyways. host: are you worried if the president does make a move that that could harm the chances of democrats winning in top contested states? caller: i worry more about the fact that americans somehow don't mind voting against their own interests. i don't know why they keep who dofor people

nothing. they don't just do nothing. they passed tax breaks. they don't tell you how they pay for them. if something has to be done for the working person, we have to know how they're going to pay for it. host: wanda from illinois. our next caller is bob on the independent line in el paso, texas. caller: good morning. just a comment about the illegal immigrants that are being shoved across the border by the cartel. this is a health care crisis. those people are coming from central america, which does not have the basic health care prevention that the united states and even mexico has. and we are spreading them all over the country.

the one thing that worries me more is tuberculosis. the drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis are very difficult to treat. host: you're in texas. have you seen an influx of immigrants into your area? caller: i don't know. i don't go there. there is a 15 foot fence between mexico and el paso. we have a great deal of commerce with mexico and people flow back and forth all the time. i don't think they can tell. people that are being shoved across the border or a health care crisis.

this is not a legal problem. this is a health problem. i sent a letter to the surgeon general and the four senators and got no response. before i sent the letter, i ran it by the pediatrician that took care of my children and he agrees. host: we will leave it there. alreadyrepublicans are voicing their opposition to any potential action by the president. they're calling this unilateral overreached.er rea here is what marco rubio says

the wall street journal also reported this morning that the surge of unaccompanied minors has started to decline. they have a chart showing the number of minors crossing the mayer and the decline from to the first 25 days of august.

on thehearing from you question of should president obama take executive action on immigration. our next caller is on the republican line and he is jim from new castle, delaware. good morning. caller: good morning. is part of the system. i hear these people complaining about a do-nothing congress. is doing something. protecting the constitution of the united states, which mr. obama took a pledge on the holy bible to do. he has to be able to reach out to the people in congress to get compromise and get lost. laws. get even the democrats never see this guy. it is important that congress has the power to stop motion.

people complain, let the president have his way. if that's not how the system works. you have to have the branches of the congress working together to formulate legislation and make laws. you can have the president shoving things through through executive action. it would set such a bad precedent. it throws the country into absolute decay. host: you're on the republican line. do you feel like this issue is worth potentially shutting down the government for? think: well, i personally -- i'm a republican who believes that this guy needs to be impeached if he tries to do something like this. even though that would be very unpopular. he would be violating the constitution by using executive action to do this sort of activity.

his tactic seems to be, instead -- first things first, wait and put things off and then complain that nothing has been done and then he tries to do stuff on his own without the support of the normal procedures of going through congress. he should not do this. he should go and court congress and try to get compromise with them that is actually legal. eugene fromp is locust grove, virginia on the democratic line. caller: good morning. that he should do whatever he can to help the immigration program. as long as it's within the confines of the constitution. that someieve

gridlock might be ok. but this congress has decided to block everything that he wants to get across. is notrticular congress even following what they themselves normally do in years past. an amazing thing here. a congress that has gone way beyond what is rational for blocking the president. presents to people that it's the president's fault for not getting them to do something when the only thing they offer is what is impossible. like shutting down obamacare.

this is an insult to the president. i'm 63. the office of the presidency is something that is supposed to be respected. these days, there is no respect for that office. our next caller is calling from flint, michigan on the republican line. i'm sorry, on the independent line. arthur, go ahead. caller: i left the republican party. i do believe that the undocumented immigrants do pay taxes. they do not file a 1099 with the irs.

rs do take taxes from those employees. they keep it. host: do you think the president should take unilateral action to deal with this issue? should wait but he until after the november elections. host: arthur on the independent line. our next caller is on the republican line. eric from gilbert, arizona. i am a republican and i do not agree with most of the views of the president. at this point, with the way that , we viewis acting

politics as being an active. ive.eing inact it would at least show them that heis willing to go as far as can to help at least get something done. whether i agree with that or not , worry about that later. another issue i wanted to bring up was the issue of republicans threatening to shut down the government again. in my opinion, that is extremely embarrassing. i could not believe that it was allowed to happen before. within the last year, they are threatening to do it again. to use the wanting ,hutdown of the government a their paychecks should be the

first to cut. i don't believe that's a right .ay to go about things at all sometimes, it may be necessary, but you never intentionally do it or included that in any negotiation tactic to get your way. especially when there is election coming up. an election coming up. i have many conservative views and i am in the front lines here in arizona with immigration. as far as all the policies and what we should do, sending them back, keeping some of them here, it is such a complicated issue. all of us that have been listening on the show really don't know exactly what goes into every piece of legislation. i can't sit here and say what the right or wrong way to go about it is.

that is for dreamers and young kids that did not have any say. if they want to go to college and better their lives and live the american dream, i think they should be able to do that. at the same time, we cannot for people that are not even citizens of our country. we are already going bankrupt supporting ourselves. host: one of those lawmakers who of been raising the specter government shutdown in reaction to any potential executive movement by the president on illegal immigration is steve king. here is what he had to say on this issue.

next caller comes from indiana on the republican line. caller: in forced that you verify. get it going. erify.t e-v it should work. people come here and can't find republicans that: on thisprogram -- call in on program this morning, but your own interest. -- devote your own interest.

vote your own interest. ahead, julio. turn down your tv so we can hear you. we are going to move on to ann from mesquite, texas on the republican line. i was going to make the same comment. the last caller was talking about if our president and the justice department would enforce books, wen the wouldn't have a problem. is the law on the books. it shows that employers should

in on the person's social security number. they don't have a social security number, they don't get the job. there are immigration laws on the books that will solve the problem. host: what about the people who are minors crossing the border for jobsot be applying but enrolling for school instead? a cop locatedat is issue. we should not let people come into our country just because they come across the border. it is creating a real problem for us. we have problems here in our country. we can do something about it. if we want cheap labor, it's what it comes down to.

as far as the president, i voted for him. he said he was going to enforce the first time he was elected in 2008 and he hasn't done it. as far as the influx of the ,eople from south america , thatala and honduras just happened. they can put a stop to that. it is about cheap labor. host: our next caller is on the democratic line. york --om brooklyn, new abe from brooklyn, new york. caller: the people that president barack obama wants to

legalize our young teenagers who andalready attending school have already been in the fabric of the american -- all they want to do is go to school and learn how to become teachers and doctors and lawyers and police officers. why not give them the chance? the have already been documented as far as going to school. these people are stuck. unfreeze them and let them go to college. ,et them be productive citizens working for the country. obama is doingk a good thing. the president of the dutch

has also urged the president to move forward on this issue. [video clip] >> it is bold enough to be worthwhile. here is the story i relate to them. when i was president of my workers, i went to a convention. $.50 duesor a increase or a five dollar dues increase, i get the same amount of grief. i get the same pahate letters. why would i ask for $.50 when i get the same beef if i ask for five dollars? , thetter what he does right wing is going to go bo nkers and say he doesn't care

about anything and he's not enforcing the law. if he goes mild, he will energize the right but won't energize the sender and the left -- center and the left. , he will goes bold energize the right the same amount but also energize the left. it is a major drag on our economy and a major drag on wages right now. is broken.at it because those undocumented workers are used to track down wages for every american out there. if you fix the system, we can drive wages up for everybody. host: we want to hear from you. should president obama take executive action on immigration?

our next caller comes from west plains, missouri. joe on the republican line. tv. down your you have a comment? caller: good morning. the man from delaware was completely right. caller from new york is a pool. we have a fence up. that means stay out. they know they break the law when they go over the fence or go under the fence. i like gridlock. -- that caller from new york is a fool. if everything is a compromise, it's all week. -- it's all weak.

i don't want another law made in this country. we have enough. i do not want obama taking any executive action. there are already bills in the senate i'm being active on it i'mharry reid but moving -- being active on. get harry reid's butt moving. host: east syracuse, new york. good morning, kelly. caller: i watch c-span every morning and i can tell you -- i was an independent for most of my life. i have never in my life listened thend watched demoralization of our president. these people that talk the way they do -- this country was founded on immigration. immigrants that came here and

took from the native indians. and we are living in the 21st century. not 1776. my father was an immigrant. purple heart, bronze star. one of the first new york city policemen that spoke spanish. i was brought up to love our country. i am so miserable listening to this that i have to shut the tv off. the ignorance of this country is unbelievable. i hope president obama does an executive order. it was the same, reagan, who gave amnesty. it's a hypocrisy that's unbelievable. saint, reagan,

who gave amnesty. host: ron from maryland on the independent line. caller: good morning. spoke, she isjust right. country was founded on immigrants. however, those immigrants came to this country legally. we have laws on the books. notle that are choosing to enforce the law are the people who are writing the laws. that is a jill ebola fence. we have enough laws on the books . ailable is a jill o offense. tose people are dictating the law enforcement agencies that they do not enforce the laws. o'malley will not enforce immigration laws here in maryland.

i believe that is not only impeachable, but jailable. people in washington, the same way, democrat or republican. they need to be impeached and they need to go in jail that they are not going to enforce the laws. host: one last caller in this segment. aubrey from george on the independent line. you have the last word. i can solve the immigration problem with a few words. everyone is a first-class citizen of the world. every last human child, a first-class citizen of the world. it is 2014. don't worry your self, baby. host: aubrey from george on the independent line. we will have to leave that

conversation therefore this morning. next up, we will talk with tim theh, the director of cato institute. king-time burger hortons merger. onhave the cbo director newsmakers this week. here is a preview of him talking about how the cbo estimated the cost of the affordable care act. [video clip] >> on the question of whether we were right or not, we don't know. in some important ways, we will never know. parts of the affordable care act, they established new streams of money that one can identify separately. it has established credits to help people buy insurance through exchanges.

those credits did not exist before. howan ultimately assess much money is being spent on this credits and compare that to what our prediction was. this was the first year. now, the enrollment in the intrinsics changes this year is -- india the exchanges the series very close -- we don't know what the cost of those credits will turn out to be. it made changes to pre-existing programs like medicare. we will never really know what effect those provisions had woulde medicare spending have passed otherwise. we will know in the end whether medicare costs more or less than we predicted after the aca was

passed. if that turns out to be different than expected, whether that difference comes from the miss assessment of the aca itself or a misunderstanding of what would've happened before the aca. your latest estimate is that the aca will reduce the deficit over the next one years. -- the next 20 years. >> we have no reason to change that assessment. neither can we do a new estimate today because the aca has now been in place for four years and its provisions are intertwined with other provisions of the pre-existing law. our next guest is tim lynch. he is the director of the criminal justice project at the cato institute. he is here to discuss the militarization of police across the country. thank you so much for joining us this morning.

you have argued that the police and ferguson not only didn't diffuse the situation but actually made the situation worse. can you explain why that is? guest: when the community protests first began and respondedthe police in a very heavy-handed, militaristic type way. we saw armored vehicles turn out. we saw a policeman get on top of these armored vehicles and set up sniper weapons point that the protesters. -- pointed at the protesters. police were setting the tone for an adversarial, confrontational approach towards people in the community coming out to protest the shooting of michael brown. host: how did you acquire these vehicles and weapons? guest: a lot of people were surprised by the images coming

out of ferguson. actually, many of our local police departments have been acquiring military equipment and military weaponry over the years from the department of defense. they have been making armored vehicles, m-16s, grenade launchers and other types of military equipment available, sometimes for free, to local leased apartments. -- police departments. we have small communities all around the country acquiring military hardware. we are alarmed not only by the weaponry, but also by the mindset that seems to be taking hold in our police departments. that viewsy mindset these people as the adversary, rather than serving and protecting. we used to refer to police officers as peace officers. they are there to respond to a disturbance and restore the peace. increasingly in this country, we units,ese militarized

-- they comet rolling into these neighborhoods with military weaponry. sometimes they are creating the disturbance. host: we want to hear from you. you can join this conversation. for republicans. (202) 585-3880 for democrats. independent line, (202) 585-3882 . we have another special phone line for police officers who would like to comment on this issue at (202) 585-3883. you can also get us on social media. or send us an e-mail. tim lynch, can you tell us about the history of the 1033 program?

how big it is and where it came from to begin with. guest: it is called the 1032 program because that first provision of the law that facilitates the flow of weapons from the pentagon to local police departments -- the law went into place in the early 1980's. there was nothing really dramatic that happened that caused that change in the law. there was no dramatic transfer at that time. that was the law that facilitated the flow of weapons. slowly snowballed over time. police departments started acquiring the equipment. it spread by word-of-mouth as we have this equipment. how did you get it? you can get it from the pentagon. slowly, over time, more departments around the country started acquiring these weapons. people think it started with 9/11. actually, the trend started well before then. security grants after 9/11 --

homeland security grants after 9/11 increase the trend here host. host: did they acquire these weapons first and it helped move this militaristic mindset or was it the mindset that drove the acquisition of these materials? guest: it was something that slowly happened over time. even before the pentagon started giving away military weaponry, we had the start of swat teams in los angeles by a police chief in the late 1960's. he created the first swat unit in that city. that, we saw the proliferation of swat teams in our major metropolitan areas. programmes the 1033 where the department of defense started making m-16s and armored vehicles available to more and more police departments.

we have the flow of weaponry and proliferating swat teams around the country. small towns that have not had violent crime problems. even when you have a swat team, they were initially created for extraordinary situations like a hostage situation. they have spread to small towns and out there be called -- they are being called out, drawn into more and more routine policing activity. you add all this up with paramilitary units around the country and they are being called out to routine policing, you can see what we mean by this paramilitary trend taking hold in the country. host: what effect has that had on the people they are supposed to be policing? guest: it sets up this adversarial, confrontational

approach between the police department and people in the community. even when they have these s, the next thing is the tactics they use. ferguson, we saw the firing of ofr gas into the backyards people's homes. firing them at journalists and reporters setting up to film the event. outside of ferguson, we are seeing the use of violent entries into people's homes to execute search warrants. you put this together and you are seeing this violent confrontation were situations are not necessary. host: we turn to your calls now. the first one comes from dodge city, kansas on a republican line. -- our republican line. caller: good morning to you.

ferguson, theyin don't get back to the root. you have to get back to the root cause. the police were totally, completely overwhelmed. isn't it much better to have of militaryments gear and not needed then to need notnd not have it -- and than to need it and not have it? militarizing not law enforcement. this from john kirby --

guest: in response to what the official said, there is going to be upcoming hearings in the congress to take a closer look at this program. a lot of questions have been raised about the accountability and tracking of these weapons. we have seen reports where the department of defense has gone back to some of these police departments and asked them what they've been doing with the equipment. accounting for the weapons. some police departments have lost m-16s. some police departments have been cut off from the program. gearcan't get additional this year if they have not been taking account of the weapons they've acquired so far. if a lot of questions have been raised about the way in which the program has been administered and whether or not there's enough checks and balances in the system. some police departments have been cut off.

we don't know where these weapons are going. or risk a possibility of corruption about these weapons finding their way onto the black market. is going toongress be looking into these questions with the upcoming hearings. host: what about the broader argument that the police forces might need some of these weapons in order to protect themselves and some members of the public? guest: i don't think my se paramilitarye units is not that they are not needed at all. it makes sense to have them in our major metropolitan areas. it's important that they be limited in their mission. the original idea was to have these units available for s.traordinary situation a hostage situation with an active shooter.

where they know in advance that they are going to encounter heavily armed suspects. that is a situation where you would want a specialized team to come out and respond to a call like that. is that it has gotten far beyond that. it has gotten into small towns that don't have a violent crime problem and we are seeing these teams respond to monday and police calls such as breaking a poker games. poker games.p rating taverns that are suspected of serving minors. our next caller comes from redmond, michigan. mike on the independent line. i just wanted to bring up a couple of things that are being overlooked in this situation.

i do agree the police are being heavy-handed in their tactics. activity a response to caused by the black community. -- facts have been ignored .he beating of an old man he was driving down the road and a young black boy pretended to be hit by him. in thed to help the boy black mob came and beat him half to death for nothing. hit the boy he had because he was white. the rights 50 years ago were caused by the same thing that caused the ferguson right.

-- ferguson riot. the black community thought it is incredible that nobody is looking at that reality of what is happening here. it is time for the black community to examine its behavior. i think the color is mistaken about what happened in ferguson. what i am critical of is the way in which the police initially responded. i think they were slow in identifying the police officer who was involved in the shooting. that was a big mistake, withholding his name as long as they did. any trouble ins ferguson with the looting and the vandalism but we saw, those were on subsequent evenings.

the police turned up for the first day in evening of those protests in the heavy militarized fashion that i'm talking about. they were out there with helmets and shields and armored vehicles and sniper weapons. this was the way they greeted the beginning of the protest. they got things off on the wrong track. expecting a confrontational situation with members of their own community who were coming up to voice a protest and the way in which the police had been handling the matter. that is what i meant when i said that things got off on the right track. on subsequent evenings we saw some the unfortunate looting and vandalism. i think the highway patrol commander demilitarize the situation and that helped to

ease the tensions. host: jan is in california. she is on the republican line. disagree with him. i want my country to be protected by the local people. ferguson,ned here in these people came in from other states. out of the 120 people arrested, four of them were local. see rioting in the streets. she said, you don't mean that. he said yes. i want to see torches and the people rioting in the streets. he is a friend of obama's. over the border, judicial watch reported that there are hundreds

of isis people in this we're going to keep on ferguson. remindit is important to people of the costs involved in having these paramilitary units. that let's the view just get this equipment and we will have these units that with the police are protecting themselves and they don't seem to recognize the downside. a few weeks ago in atlanta, a swat team was rating a home. they threw a flash bang grenade into the window of the home. it landed in the crib of a toddler. toddler'sd in that crib and it is in a coma. these are some of the problems with these violent entries using

militaristic type tactics that one would expect to find in a war zone in iraq being used in american communities. behind every one incident where somebody is killed or injured, there are these violent entries into homes that don't get as much attention. the media does not consider it a story when there is not a serious injury involved. these of the costs we have to consider when we weigh the wisdom of these tactics. has orderedesident a review of the 1033 program. there is movement on capitol hill to look at as well. this is a story from talking points memo.

do you see these efforts as worthwhile? do they go far enough? guest: the efforts are worthwhile. it is long overdue the congress looks at this. since the images of these militaristic weapons have come out of ferguson, a lot of americans are concerned about. we have congressmen expressing concern. they have contributed to the problem and it is time they rethink this flow of weaponry from our department of defense into our local communities. how does camouflage uniforms help anybody? it creates an intimidation factor with the police against members of the community. uniforms, our police forces should not look like soldiers. it affects their work. when you're dressed as a

him he isf you tell waging a war on drugs, you shouldn't be surprised that they start to act like soldiers. the military mission is very different from the police mission. wen we send soldiers to war, expect them to find the enemy for us and wreak havoc on them. that is the military mission. the police mission is very different. we want them to avoid the use of force. we want them to use it as a last resort and if they have to to use it as a minimum. when we begin to confuse these missions, we get unnecessary violence. host: you wrote in a piece on an that dressing someone as soldier does not make him a soldier. guest: it creates a mindset of them rolling into a community and perceiving a potential

threat everywhere instead of being a resident of the community. these are people that he is trying to help. we are getting away from that idea where the police are responding to calls. they are coming to help you and recover your property. they are going to find the perpetrator so he does not harm your neighbors. instead we are finding these units in a proactive fashion rolling into a neighborhood and conducting violent entries in the people's homes for nonviolent drug offenses, for example. this is what has us alarmed. are going to michigan. caller: good morning. i would like to say that in 2009 fromook the statistic search and seizures of marijuana plants. they killed 10,000 people. 3000 were children.

250,000 dogs that died. they stopped taking the statistic because it was so outrageous. they want us to take synthetic hair one and sell that to the rest of the world. that is why they do it. host: that is randy in michigan. out to ray and tennessee on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment. has he been on any of these raids that these policeman do and has he seen what they are up against? when they go to these places and try to get him, these people throw the dope down the commode and flush it. that is why they ripped these doors off. to enforce the law.

whatr as camouflage, difference does it make? law-abiding citizens out there in ferguson were glad to see the police were out there doing their job. regardless of what they are doing or have on. they were trying to quell an uprising. he needs to go out there with the policeman. host: ray in tennessee. guest: one thing that we think would be helpful as far as reform goes is in addition to limiting the missions to the extraordinary situations where they might be warranted, is the use of body cameras. that would allow the police toicers to show the tape members of the public that this is the situation we faced. it was a violent encounter. that justified our response to it.

it can also show instances of police brutality. resisting,was not that evidence can be used with the police stepped out of line. the earlier caller mentioned that many pets are being shot by police these days. this is something we hear more and more about. there was an example where in -- some smugglers took the ups package and left it on the front stoop of his home. he came home from work and does what all of it does. he brought the box into his home. it contained drugs. he did not know that. they would send these packages to people's homes. person would pick up

the box before the homeowner knew what was going on. he brought that into his home and moments later one of the swap units broke down the front door. they shot the two dogs in his home. his mother-in-law was traumatized. the police -- when it became apparent to them after they were searching zone that he was not involved in the drug trade, they did not even apologize to him. they just said this is what we do. there is no advanced investigative work before these violent entries take place. they should triple checked that they are at the right home and what the circumstances might be in the home. there might be children or elderly people or people may not understand english. it is one knock and a battering ram knocks down the door. unnecessary violence with people or their family pets. it sounds like part of the

problem is not just the wiring of weaponry but also the training and the mindset that you mentioned earlier of the police officers. there is an effort headed by elijah cummings to create a police czar that might address some of these issues. they wrote a letter to president obama. what do you think of this initiative to appoint a police czar and what kind of training needs to be done to help the situation? idea of don't like the another federal czar. we have already had too many of those and that is a knee-jerk response in washington to create another office and bureaucracy.

i am not for that idea at all. the government needs to clean up its own act. so far been talking about local civilian police agencies. we have another problem at the federal level. in addition to the flow of theons from the pentagon, number of regulatory agencies that have also created paramilitary units. the fbi has them. the secret service has them. dea. the fbi should have some of these. i'm talking about the fda. the bureau of land management. the education apartment. these non-law-enforcement agencies have also acquired military weapons and military units that are going out to enforce their regulations. this is another aspect of the militarization problem. the feds should focus on that

before we create another federal czar. to knoxville, tennessee. good morning. caller: i would like to speak to mr. lynch. many of the things he has said regarding this 1033 program i totally agree with. when i look at the situation we have hadessee, some benefit from that. what it does in a negative is put an additional financial burden on the local communities. equipmentto keep this in operating condition. even if they have to use it 5% of the time, it is not worth it. when you look at all the negative things of come out of this deployment of these

vehicles and things, the other thing that bothers me is we need to do more on selecting and hiring our policeman and county sheriffs. we have a lot of people who have this military idea as mr. lynch has mentioned. they overreact. what do youerreact, expect from a public person who is seen this humongous vehicle out there with machine guns on top of it and gas masks and other stuff? the bottom line of what i am trying to say is we need to end the 1033 program. our government needs to and it as we should do also with this other program call the 287 program. it causes a lot of things to happen in local areas that were discriminatory. good: the caller makes a

point. this is not something we have touched on. looks like it is upside gain for the local police departments. the agents will sometimes go to the police chief and say the department of defense is giving the stuff away. if we don't grab at the people in the next county will. it looks like there is no cost involved. then they find that later on there is cost involved in maintaining some of this equipment. they don't anticipate that. the second thing that happens is there is a problem with the direct connection between the police departments and the department of defense. the local policymakers like the city councils who oversee the local police departments are unaware that their own department has contacted the department of defense and acquiring these things. they don't realize it. there is a wrongful death lawsuit rod against the city or

county and their police department. the questions that should have been asked at the beginning are asked during the wake of a tragedy. why was the unit called out to his particular situation? that doesn't seem to make sense, it seems to be an overreaction. these hard questions are not being asked at the beginning. some of does seem like the things the local police departments are acquiring might be necessary tools. the most popular items the ournse department gives magazine cartridges. after that it was electrical wire. they mentioned cold-weather shorts -- shirts and sleeping bags. does the program need to and or does it need to be curtailed with more accountability? guest: i think that is a fair

question. i think that is a questionable come up in these upcoming hearings. a lot of the details are just now beginning to get more clear. there is intense scrutiny that has come to bear since the images of ferguson got national attention. policymakers are going to focus on what the scope is. you mentioned resident obamas review that he is ordered. that is where they are going to examine exactly what is being given. most of the concern is not over blankets and sleeping bags. it is over him 16's and grenade launchers and these armored vehicles with machine guns on top. these are the things that have got people concerned. our next caller is jim. when obama made his

speech about we need a civilian , that is what we have. he is a big part of it pushing forward with that. it is against the fourth amendment. we should be it -- secure in our own homes. we should be treated like american civilians instead of an enemy in combat. cops go to quick to the gun. if they can't subdue somebody without using a gun, they need to find another job or call for backup or something. if the guy was wrong for doing something, he doesn't need to be shot six times. that is ridiculous.

if somebody is peacefully protesting, that is a first amendment right. i think what our government is trying to do is push us into martial law. we're up against a military force anymore. host: that was oklahoma. guest: i think you make some good points. when he mentioned the fourth amendment, that is a point that is worth talking about. it is one of the things that we are afraid we are losing. there is a great american tradition were we consider our homes to be our castles. protects usmendment against searches. it's not to say that they should not take place. there is a principle of the knock and announce principle. they are supposed to come to the

front door knock on the door and announce their presence that they are the police and they have a search warrant and they are there to conduct a search. the idea behind that rule is to give the homeowner and the occupants an opportunity to answer the door so the search can take place in a peaceful way. more and more often, these units are trying to bypass that rule. you see it on tv and it is caught on video where they run up to the door and within a few seconds before you can get out of the chair and walked three steps the battering ram smashes down the front door and they go running in screaming. that is where these violent situations come in. sometimes those situations are inevitable. there is noolicing, reason why they can't abide by the fourth amendment. host: melvin is from fort

lauderdale, florida. you are on the democratic line and also a retired police officer. caller: i've been listening to the comments made. need the no knock rule and sometimes you should. in thell applicable situation you're dealing with. a swat team is not used for civil is obedience trade you have civil disturbance teams for that. that lawree enforcement in these small towns are getting equipment that they don't know how to use. the reason we started a swat they werec. was

wanted to wreak havoc in the inner cities. we started a swat team to go through the training to get different information to put our people together. not all a swat team is that on everyday events. if you find the situation can't someone from the patrol is supposed to call him. the decision is made if a swat team is going to be needed. when the commander of the swat team gets their, he determines what will be needed from this arsenal that is at the headquarters.

you just don't come to the scene with all of this heavy equipment. they do carry their own weapons that they train on everyday for a certain. of time. it is police officers going amok in the small towns with all of this new equipment that they've got. they should not have it. just like the atf in waco. they wore civilian clothing. it turns into this major situation. they were not prepared for. training takes time. the officer has to take certain tests before they can get on the swat team. that is how it is supposed to operate. this is something that has come along and it is not being monitored properly and people don't know what they are doing. host: melvin in florida.

guest: i think he makes some good points. i think is important to recognize that even within the law enforcement community, they are debating the wisdom of these tactics and the role of these units. policing in the united states is very decentralized. it is at the state and local level. we have 18,000 police departments in the country. they fall along a spectrum. at one end of the spectrum you have departments where they have decided they don't need a paramilitary unit. others of said they want them but limit them to extraordinary situations. that is the policy in dallas. at the other end of the spectrum, you have a lot of small towns that are creating these units that they don't have a training for and they are being called into situations that don't war and a militarized response.

this is what we are debating. host: robert is in new york. he is on the democratic line. he is a retired police officer as well. guest: hello. theke to speak about gardener death in staten island. killed bya man be selling loose cigarettes on the streets? yorkommissioner of new says a man has sold loose cigarettes on the street. he is killed. he is doing a low crime.

that is not even a crime. somebody trying to sell some loose cigarettes on the street and the cops go in there and they kill this man. how can this be? how can this be that someone who is selling cigarettes on the street is going to be killed? it is a very tragic case. there is a man named eric gardener who was selling cigarettes on the sidewalk in new york. the police came to him and asked him what he was doing. i they accused him of violating a regulation in new york city about taxation of cigarettes. when the police decided they were going to arrest him it turned into this violent confrontation. this was not a swat collett. the police put this man into a

chokehold and it was all captured on videotape. he died. i think there is a connection between this case and what we have been talking about with ferguson. for people in the black community and other people concerned about police tactics, that happened two or three weeks before the shooting death of michael brown. for a lot of people around the country, it is not just the shooting of michael brown. that came after the choking death of this man in new york city. are wondering why people turned out in protest in ferguson, that is one of the reasons. that is one case. there are simmering tensions in our major metropolitan areas about the way in which police react to people in the community. host: we have time for one more color. that will be paul in new york on

the independent line. you are the last one. make it quick and caller: a quick question. i think these combat fatigues are for camouflage in a jungle. why are they being used in an urban environment? can you give me a simple reason as to why this is seen as some practical benefit? is this some sort of something else? question really should not be posed to me. it should be posed to the police that are acquiring these things and to members of the staff of the pentagon. why they think police departments would need this. i don't see any practical benefit an american city or american suburbia for the police department to be wearing of these camouflage uniforms.

my own view is that as part of this militaristic trend that we're seeing. , the-16s, the helmets is a goodhicles, that question. it should be posed to the authorities. director ate the the cato institute. thank you for joining us this morning. next we will hear from marty sullivan. he will speak about tax inversions in light of the merger of tim hortons and burger king. we will later discuss the situation of the american worker on this labor day. stay tuned. >> this labor day, on the c-span andorks >> on c-span

education department summit on bullying in school. at a the clock, known by the science guy and ken ham debate education. congressman james clyburn talks about his life from his youth in the jim crow south. book "price ofhe fame." the0:00, michael lewis author of "flash boys." american artifacts tonkint the 1964 gulf of incident that led to the escalation of the vietnam war. warren harding's

recently released love letters. the wife of milton freeman. at can find our schedule www.c-span.org. let us know about the programs you are watching. you can join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. washington journal continues. host: we are here with marty sullivan. he is the chief economist. you're here to talk about the merger of tim hortons and burger king. thank you for being here. -- questionurse in is explain this would attacks conversion is. guest: this is a u.s. corporation changing its legal

domicile to a foreign country and that gives them potential tax benefits. a little more detail is before 2004 when congress changed the law, they could do this unilaterally. they could just change the address to ireland or the netherlands. congress made it more difficult. now they have to find a merger partner. in the deals you are hearing about now, a corporation will merge of a foreign corporation and the new entity will be outside the united states. fridayovides them with a of tax benefits. host: the u.s. corporate tax rate is high. it is 39%. we have a chart right here. it is 26% in canada where tim hortons is based. what has congress tried to do in

order to mitigate this difference in tax rates? in 1986, we had tax reform. the corporate tax rate went down from 46 to 34%. president clinton raised to 35%. hasrest of the world greatly reduced their corporate tax rates. we have fallen behind by standing still. they are given that differential. many people are calling for corporate tax reform that would reduce the corporate rate. tax reform bill through congress is very difficult. host: we have some comments from who urgeherrod brown to this week for trimmers -- consumers to boycott burger king in light of this.

the washington times has some of his comments. why is this deal getting so much attention? guest: it's not the biggest deal that has gone on. we all know who burger king is. we see it on the highway. with deals are usually companies that consumers are not aware of. high visibility is causing all the stir. any company that reduces its taxes runs the risk of hurting his reputation. that is a large problem for retail. they interact with the public so

much more. starbucksted kingdom, was accused of not paying its fair share of taxes. they are a very visible company. they volunteered to pay an extra 20 million pounds in tax. fore is a difference companies with a very public profile than one that might be more secure. host: we want to hear what you have do think about this issue. do you think companies should pay their fair share in taxes? you can call us. it seems like in the previous decades we heard about companies setting up headquarters in the cayman islands and the smaller

countries. now we're hearing about inversions. why are the countries changing? guest: we had a wave of inversions in the early 2000's before congress passed a new law. for five orent away six years. there has been a new wave of inversions since 2010. it is not necessary to locate your headquarters in very obvious tax haven like the cayman islands. is countries like the u.k. have lowered their tax rates. canada has lowered their tax rates. that does help appeal. they like having their

headquarters in real countries where people don't automatically assume there is tax abuse. there are good corporate governance laws in those countries. tore are still major tax and moving to canada and the united kingdom. host: for some of these companies, might there be a real business strategy behind it? tim hortons is very popular in canada. they seem synonymous in their popularity. going to bring some burger king in this morning. a reckless chain. there is a business synergy there for them. trend on wall street to deny any tax benefits. there is the tremendous

potential for reducing tax benefits at the same time. are potential tax benefits to that. reduceese deals you can tax benefits. you can read deuce on your non-u.s. income and on your u.s. income. although the deal may have taken place and would have without the tax benefits, they are there. to oure will turn callers. our first caller is glenn in oklahoma on the republican line. caller: one of the problems with moving is thes regulations in this country are find otherinesses to

corporate places. system is too high. regulations are killing businesses. the government and the epa don't seem to care. theset hardly blame companies for doing it. some of them are doing it because it has reached a point where they either move or they go out of business. that was my comment. should make the point that these inversions are legal. guest: absolute. there is a good point. what happens in these deals it is not going to change the regulatory environments for these firms. they are not changing their operations. itshortons is going to have

headquarters in ontario and burger king will have its real headquarters in miami. they are not going to change business operations in the near term. all of these regulatory problems that the caller mentioned will still remain. even though we say they're moving to another country, it is a legal move and not a real move. host: we have this twitter question. guest: there is a friday in the corporate sector with the amount of the tax burden. companies like retailers and health insurance firms have very high rates.

they don't have deductions or credits to take advantage of. they usually don't have a foreign operations where they can shift profits out of united states. companies like pharmaceutical companies and tech companies which have the ability to shift profits out of the united states and have other deductions available, they have low rates. we have a wide range of tax rates. this is one of the reasons why we want tax reaffirm -- reform is to level out out. said pharmaceutical companies have some of the lowest effective rates. are they on the leading ran -- trend of this? the companiesld with the lowest need to move out of the united states? they just like having lower taxes. specifically the problem is the way they have gotten their tax

rates so low is by shifting profits out of united states into low tax jurisdictions. work isthe tax rules that is tax-free unless you bring it back to the netted states. thethey have stocked piled -- in these haven't -- havens. they can't do it under the current system. they will give themselves a lot of opportunities to bring that money back tax-free. it is a very big deal for pharmaceutical companies. , indiana from moscow is on the democratic line. caller: that's idaho. i just wanted to point out that i think the most egregious tax inversion was halliburton who was on a no-bid contract for

tens of billions of dollars and then they moved their business over to dubai and screwed the american public two ways. that is only thing i wanted to point out. i think that was the most egregious tax inversion screw job we have ever encountered. host: jim from idaho. now we will turn to arthur from florida. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: what is your comment today? caller: my question is if corporate america wanted a lower why doesn't congress close all the loopholes. the american people would be more than willing to lower the when corporate

thatca inverts overseas. company not only pays them but our tax dollars pay them to ship .ur jobs overseas of the small businessman doesn't have the lawyers or the money or the finances to do that. you are putting the bigger tax burden on the small businessman and corporate america wants it all for nothing at the expense of the small business and the taxpayer while they rake in the big money. that is not right. that is not fair. epaybody wants to blame the or obama. corporate america wants it all and they wanted for nothing and they wanted at the expense of the american people. good: he brings up a point. if you are a purely the mastic

corporation, you don't have the opportunities that a multinational corporation has for shifting profits out of the united states. there is an unfairness there. when defenders of the multinationals say they are competing with foreign companies, they need to be on a level playing field. arguments ontimate both sides. there shouldst, not be a corporate tax. tax raises is the $450 billion here. where is that money going to come from? republicans, nobody is repealing it. it is a very popular tax with the public.

do ise would like to lower the rate and make it more fair and make it as reasonable as possible so that there is more of a level playing field for the multinationals versus the smaller firms. for usan you lay out what the state of play is in washington? there been several proposed pieces of legislation once tongass comes back from recess to address this situation? guest: there are quite a few. the first one i would mention is the bill proposed by the leaven vin brothers.e both of them are from michigan. taking theroposed 2004 law and making it tougher. can invertw said you

unless there is a real business purpose. if way they measure it is the newly merged corporation is you can't20% foreign, have a walmart merging with the corner store in the u.k.. that would not qualify. when you can have is large companies merging with midsized foreign companies and those deals are ok. in bill would do was to make the foreign company larger. the other bills that are out there would prevent under u.s. law it is not a foreign plainfield. foreign companies have advantages. much morecompany can

easily strip and come out of united states and put it into a tax haven. anti-earnings stripping , senator schumer they areg about it, talking about increasing their restrictions on this type of earnings stripping. there are other proposals out there as well. the administration is talking about changing regulations. there are other things as well that could be done. things it spectrum of could be thrown into the gears of these deals. what the republicans are advocating is let's skip all that and moved to the main event. let's confront tax reform. it is aaid all that,

big many of possibilities. probably nothing is going to happen anytime soon. host: the president might change regulations. thereare rumors that might be a speech on this. guest: the president has proposed in his budget something similar to what is in the levin bill. there is a debate among tax lawyers among whether the president does have the authority to do these changes unilaterally or not. what he would do would be something like an anti-earnings stripping bill. shifting andent come out of the netted states after you invert. it is fuzzy right now what he would do. it is fuzzy if he has the authority to do that. host: our next caller is mariano

in ohio. isler: i believe there actual court cases that allow people both corporations and individuals to exercise their right to lower their taxes as much as possible. that is why i am offended when you have the president calling people unpatriotic. they are calling for a boycott of burger king. i think they should get together and do the public policy rather than using rhetoric that is dangerous when you start calling corporations unpatriotic. guest: i agree with the caller. as much as i think inversions are not good for the tax system or the economy, the way to stop it is change the law and not pressure people to do it unilaterally.

i think the caller makes a good point. it is difficult to say to a corporation that out shout not lower your taxes unless you change the law. some corporations are not interested in this. their competitors are doing it. they are getting advantages. they can't leaves themselves at a competitive disadvantage. i agree with the caller. host: next up is joe in florida on a democrat line. caller: good morning. i have a general comment and a question. is i think corporations should be free to exercise their right to implement their corporate strategy. if that includes laureate taxes that make sense. efficienciese some

for burger king merging with tim hortons. specifically to the guest is to what extent does the north american free trade agreement have something to do with it? thank you. guest: i am not much of a trade deal person. i have no common that. host: next up is chuck in cincinnati on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have a comment. toupport burger king's right invert. governmentnk our deserves our tax dollars. if they want to spend it on andng for illegal people

for wars that have been going on over insands of years iraq and afghanistan, there is no hope of solving them. if they want to waste our money, they don't deserve it. that is my comment. we have a tweet. guest: that is a really good question. it is easy for people on the capitol hill to say they want to lower tax rates and make firms more competitive. when it comes to how will we make that up, we hear much less discussion. as you mentioned, the rest of

the world has greatly reduced corporate tax rates. they have been able to do that because they have value added taxes. they have raised that to make that up. a value-added tax is a fancy sales tax. on every other country in the world. in the u.k., it is 20%. it is much larger than our state sales taxes here. these are large sources of revenue for these countries. faced competitive pressure to lower corporate tax rates, they raised their value-added taxes. they raised taxes on the wealthy individuals as well. these are two things that are political nonstarters in the united states. when we say we want to lower corporate tax rates so we can be

wee the rest of the world, don't have the same options available to us. outcomes of our reluctance to consider a value-added tax or consider raising tax rates is we may have to have it. that may the penalty that we have to pay. the caller brings up the essential question. pay or makeoing to up for the lost revenues of any of these types of corporate tax breaks? thomas calling from pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: good morning. i think sherrod brown has got it right. this is what you get when you vote republicans into office. i am a republican and have been for 40 years.

in the pocketse of whoever has the biggest bucks. campaign change the finance laws so that they can't be bought by special interests, this is going to continue to happen. intentionally are confusing and convoluted. mission ofanother the politicians, to make it so confusing that nobody can understand it. there are commonsense solutions to problems like this. politicians, particularly the republicans, one is to isieve that is like there nothing we can do about it. this is garbage.

there are solutions to all these problems. when halliburton gets in trouble in dubai, who is going to bail them out? do they expect the military to save their lives? i want to see one of these loonies take care of them. we have more comments from sherrod brown. guest: he is doing two things. the first thing he is saying is these firms are being unpatriotic and we should boycott them. that may be a little bit too much. of otherng and all

invert incorporations are just doing -- minimizing their taxes. that is perfectly legal. how would you stop people from doing this? he is making proposals for legislative change. ofs would reduce the ability tax benefits that go along with this. he is on theay, far end of the clinical spectrum on the left. when youg republicans, get down to doing tax reform and how you would change the law, the chairman of the ways can -- hadmeans committee, he similar proposals to what sharad brown is talking about that would limit corporations to ship profits abroad. there is a realistic tax reform. there would be breaks put on

these deals. host: what is the incentive for a company to stay headquartered in america if there is a merger situation overseas? anst: there is not much of incentive. if you have two equal partners [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captions performed by national captioning institute] guest: two multinational companies that do exactly the same business, one head quartered foreign, one u.s., will have different tax opportunities.

ost: next up, janet. janet, go ahead. caller: i am always in support of what sheriff brown is doing. i have two quick points. one point is it cannot be said enough that there is an official tax rate and an effective tax rate. the american people need to understand this. these corporations do not pay the official tax rate. they pay the effective tax rate. burger king's tax rate right now is like 27%. it is not 39% or 34%. the second point i have is that these corporations already receive subsidies from the american taxpayers because they refuse to pay their employees enough money so that the

american tax payers have to earned ood stamps and income tax credit and all kinds of tax relief to their employees because they don't pay enough money and don't want to pay the inimum wage. i plan on boycotting burger king. ve eaten my last burger king . rger uest: one of the seek -- secrets in washington is that they do not pay the tax rate,

and a lot of them are doing very well under the current law. the chairman's proposal, they would do worse. they would have their taxes raised, even though the current statchtri rate would come down. so in spite all we are hearing about -- i'm agreeing with the caller that we have a high 39 perforate. it is terrible. the rate should come down for a lot of reasons. not all corporations in the u.s. are suffering under the current system by any means. ost: we turn to colleen. >> when we got into the fiasco in iraq, we were called unpatriotic. how does citizens united figure into these questions? the other one, when was this

regulation? when did it come about? i agree, we need to boy got could the anyone that does not pay their fair share of taxes. getch citizens united did more lobbying. i would say it is true that multieye national corporations have more influence with legislators. they also have tremendous influence with the i.r.s. they are not doing anything illegal. they are freely expressing themselves. however, their voices, just by the sheer amounts of resources hey can pour into regulatory changes help give them a more favor rabble tax situation than regular -- favorable tax situation than regular people

ave. "while u.s. dline, house speaker john boehner and ways and means committee chairman dave camp have resisted calls for a crackdown on companies adopting overseas addresses to pay lower taxes, both have made money off one of the deals. they have investments at risk of losing value because of government action. the two lawmakers reported the sale of stock in covidein was a" in addition, there report about mike mcfadden whose investment firm was involved in a firm that moved its business to ireland and p significantly

dropped its tax rate. involved at the time. driven ne-sideed deal by lawmakers, not by the drug. how successful have consumer actions been in the past at derailing some of these corporate taxes? guest: that's a good point. way back in 2002, when we had r first inversion, stanley works was the first company. they were aggressive about wanting to do an inversion. i think public pressure caused them to backdown. recently walgreens had been

considering to move off shore, and i think they made the decision that the damage to their reputation and the damage, as we've heard this morning, many people are boycotting burger king because of this, that they don't want to take that risk and they will back down. so i think consumers will have, especially companies that hide public availability, will have an impact, especially by boycotting the company or by putting pressure on congress to shut down. host: gregory, you are on the air. caller: thank you very much. mr. solomon, i think this concept of inverg is something of a decoy and a distraction. i think if you relate taxes to interest, particularly on our national debt, which is sky rocketing as we speak, aren't we

giving the world our good faith and credit in exchange for their deputies into our treasury? not only that, but paying them interest besides? it seems like the thing is inverted. we should not be paying interest on our national debt, especially to foreigners. not only that, we should be charging them for our good faith and credit. you also highlight the levin brothers in michigan. these two guys are not only insidious, but they are destruct ive. i want you to see the proof of that can be seen in our automobile industry, especially from michigan. thank you for your interest in tax diversion . guest: the caller put a lot of

things on the table. the first thing he said is that diverting taxes -- that interest is a -- an inversion. we get emotional impact when you say a company is moving off shore. it sounds unpatriotic, whether or not it is. the inversion issue has gotten a disproportionate amount of attention relative to its importance. for example, much more tax avoidance is taking place under the radar every day with normal tax planning and profit shifting, and it doesn't have his dramatic affect. so it is sort of a distraction from the main event. on the other hand, if you look at the polling, a question like, should you as corporations be allowed to move off shore, or

should we shut down the ability, that always wins a 90% to 10%. so it is a good issue for the democrats right now. host: next up is steven on the democratic line. caller: yeah. i was just calling about this burger king thing. as far as i'm concerned, i'm done buying burger king. let them move off shore, let the canadians buy burger king. the rest of these companies that want to go out of the country and buy cheap labor, let them buy their products. as far as i'm concerned, i'm done with the republican party. they are a sellout. pretty much the democratic party has, too. but at least they are standing up for americans. .f you want a job, buy american

guest: when walgreens announced it was not doing the inversion, i think its stock went down 10%. but as you can see, from the calls today, there is a consumer backlash. how large it is, it is hard to say. walgreens has to weigh the tax benefit versus the negative publicity. maybe walgreens did make the right decision when it decided not to invert. host: there have been some companies that brought business back to the us, ebay is one, even though they lose money. why would a company do that?

guest: normally in these circumstances they have paid 5% to 10% off shore. they have to pay 25% tax when they bring that back. they don't want to do that, but they have needs for cash. they have to pay dividends. they want to repurchase shares. part of the problem is they have been so successful, and i think ebay -- i can't speak to ebay in particular, but companies have been so successful, that most of their cash is outside of their reach. the good news, they are able to reduce their taxes. the bad news is they can't use the cash. so the pressures building up and building up. imagine if you had most of your cash behind a wall where you had to pay 30% tax. you would want to avoid that as long as possible. but that pile of cash is grown -- has grown so large, that the pressure is building up, and you need to bring the money back.

host: we have lynn on our independent line. lynn, you have the last word today. caller: thank you. this issue is so complicated. i don't know if people understand how many levels of corporation. i'm incorporated. i have a tiny convenience store and gas station in california, but everything has gone up. i try to picture these board members at this board table trying to watch their bottom dollar. a lot of times it is not trying to screw the government or america, it is just trying to figure out a way to stay in business. you know, when the minimum wage goes up, which i believe in paying your people if you can. i just wish i had the freedom as a business owner, to pay my people what they earn, what they

deserve, examine -- and if they agree to work with me at that rate, then that's an agreement i have between that individual and myself. when the laws come in and take the freedom away from us of where our money can go -- like, i'm not opposed to paying $9 an hour for somebody. except for the fact if somebody comes and gets a job with me and i have to start them at $9 an hour where i used to start them at $8 and after a two-week period i bump them to $9, well, i can't afford to bump them to $10. i'd like to give the guy that's been working for me 10 years a dollar an hour raise, which i can't afford to do. guest: well, believe me, congress is very in tune to the needs of small business, particularly in tax reform. one thing they will not do on the republican or democratic

side, is give something to major multieye nationals without doing something commensurate for small businesses. so for that fact i think small businesses can feel some small degree of comfort. host: thank you for being here. guest: thank you for having me. host: next up, we will talk to two labor economists. we'll be right back.

>> this labor day on the c-span network, on c-span at 5:30 eastern, an education summit on bhullying in schools. at 8:00, bill nye, the science guy, and steve hamm debate evolution. at 7:00 p.m. representative james clyburn talks about his growing up in the jim crowe south and becoming a congressman. t 8:30 p.m., we have a discussion on the book "price of fame." at 10:00 p.m., "flash boys." at 7:15 talking about the gulf

f tonkin incident which led to the vietnam war. find our television schedule at c-span.org, and let us know about the programs you are watching. 400. us at 202-626-3 e-mail us at comments @ c-span.org. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we are joined by the senior mikita, andlow from we are also joined by mr. mishel

. thank you both so much for being ere. how is the american worker doing? we are hearing about improvements. are workers actually feeling hat? >> i don't think workers are feeling it as much as we had hopeed. in one sense, one of the reasons why it has been dropping, people have left the labor force. they have kind of decided things are worse.

it seems there is unemployment. so yes, people are going -- under-employment. so people are going back, but they are not the same kinds of jobs. it is not great. >> i think american workers and working families aren't doing so well. they haven't done so well for 30 years or 40 years. we are coming out of the deepest recession since the 1930's. things are getting better. i look at the labor market data. what it tells me is we need a lot more jobs. we need better quality jobs. we have released a report that shows that wages for the bottom 95% of the workforce actually fell behind inflation over the last year. this has been the case. starting wages for just about 10 years before we even waited for the gret recession. i believe that the key economic challenge that we have is how to get wages growing for everybody that builds economic growth

based on that. host: why haven't wages been earning? guest: i can tell you, there have been increased productivity. corporate profits are the highest in many, many decades. what we have is a situation where people don't have the leverage. they don't have the leverage because they can't readily go get another job. they can't get a better job. unions are too week in our economy to be able to push up the higher wages. so employers have all the leverage. our policies, that i think have been put in place on behalf of employers, are giving them more leverage. we have to change that if we're oing to make things different. host: veronique? guest: a lot of these wages are

reporting outside of fringe benefits. which have, over time, represented a bigger and bigger share of compensation. that being said, it is true, as reported, wages have been going down. it is true we need economic growth. the way to promote economic growth is not to have more firms, what you want to guarantee is simply not to make -- to make low-scale workers more expensive. a lot of the policy that has been pushed by the government is to make or to signal that there is a move toward making workers and that is not an exciting prospect for employers. it is not the best way to get them started to hiring. host: you are saying some of these increases to push minimum

wage could result in a lowdown in hiring? guest: there are a lot of mandates, health care mandates and things like this have a make hiring more expensive. guest: first and foremost, having growth and better growth is good. but that is not the solution for workers necessarily, as all of our evidence would suggest. we have had lots of growth. we have had productivity growth, but workers' pay has been going down, even among college graduates. even among people we consider highly educated. the wage deficit in the last year -- i disagree with this, with the concern about the wages being composed too high among low-wage workers. last week the only group that held their ground were the workers at the very bottom. the only reason for that is that

in states covering around 40% of the jobs, the minimum wage went up in the first half of 2014. everybody else saw their wages fall. did that hurt jobs? we know that jobs are disproportionately being created at the bottom. hey are not being stopped by the proposal of the minimum wage. what we have is a situation where we built the economy, we get growth, but it doesn't get from what the employers have to the workers. that's the problem we want to solve. host: we want to hear your thoughts on this as well. you can give us a ring on the republican line at 202-585-3881, the democratic line at 202 -585-3880, on the independent line at 202-585-3882.

you can also e-mail us at ournal@c-span.org. we'll have our first call from the republican line from peter. peter, go ahead. caller: this is a complicated topic, so i hope i can get this out. the problem is, we 75% of the labor does ven have a college degree. we import people into this country. the federal reserves policy in uantity fative -- quantitative easing has continued to go up, because they are trying to keep a 2% inflation rate. wages have not gone up along with prices. that's why you see a depressed

economy. if they would allow some price deflation to be equivalent with the amount of income the american workers -- worker has, it would actually help the economy much more. that's not the policy. also, you have out-sourcing. so a lot of companies are out-sourcing good, middle class jobs out of the country. like i said, with illegal immigration, less than 20% of immigrants work in the agricultural sector. they are in every other sector and they are displacing american workers. i'm going to cut it off there. i could continue on with this. host: we heard you peter. would you like to comment? guest: i can't address all these issues, bhu one of the things u want to do is not dissuade

employers top hire american workers. he nk one of the issues addresses, bringing in workers from other countries, it also helps the consumer. that also has an impact on the american public. i think all the things he talked about goes to the core to one of the problems that we have, and that's uncertainty. there are a lot of policies being put in place, a lot of them contradict each ewe, and a lot will be taking place over the long run. which means that when you are an ememployer, you are not sure what the future holds for you. uven certainty leads to paralysis in the labor market. i think there has been a lot of that going on. it will continue. s hasn't congress that

done a lot in a while. there is no adult in the room. unfortunately congress is contributing a lot to the situation. guest: peter, i hear you on some points. let me add some facts you want to incorporate into your analysis. yes, 75% do not have a college degree, but even those with a college degree have not seen a wage increase in 10 years. immigration, i understand your thinking. it is also true wages have been grown growing a number of years, and immigration has been dead in the water during this great recession. we have no great influx of immigrants going on. i hear you about the federal reserve board. i'm very much in favor of the lowest interest rates possible now, and the quantitative easing, because i think that's the only tool available for

policymakers to get to the solution, but congress is not doing the job i would like them to do. our problem is pricing. we have had three policies over pricing, and no matter what happens, wages never seem to rise as fast as prices. you can try to get them up or down, employers manage to keep wages lower than prices. so i don't think getting a price raise -- incline will help. what we have, we see wage decline. guest: it would be great, but it would mean bargaining power has been transferred to an employee. e have had that in the 1990's.

but i do think what you have about congress raising those prices actually applies to congress trying to manipulate wages, employment, and as far as the minimum wage, i know that has resident president said, in a stage where the minimum wage is raised -- when you look at the economic data, it is not that obvious. if this were true, the state where the minimum wage increased the most there would be increase in economic growth. well, these states not only lowered economic growth that didn't increase the minimum wage. in the state like new jersey, that is the state that saw the biggest increase in the minimum wage, you saw a reduction in mployment.

so i think government is not really very good at controling the private sector. it is not very good. we wish that we had perfect and precise tools, but it doesn't. it's way more complicated. it's never as simple as it is said in washington. guest: first of all, the government does not do well controlling the private sector. let's start with the private secretaryor uncontrolled is creating all the outcomes that i think is adverse to most working families. the fact that we don't have wages and incomes rising from those people has been pretty dismal for four decades. the minimum wage has been vastly studied. i don't claim we need a higher minimum wage to propel growth. i just think it doesn't do much either way to affect employment

or growth, but it does lead to hire wages to people at the bottom 20%. god knows they need it. this group is far more educated than they were 30 to 40 years ago. they have never benefited from the overall productivity growth of the overall economy. their wages are actually lower than they were 30 years to 40 years ago. the reason they were is they don't have leverage. that's why i think government policy is wanting to give them the leverage. they need it. host: we turn to rick in massachusetts on the democratic line. rick, go ahead. caller: i think you two are being lost in the weeds. i think global zation has been globalization has had the biggest impact on the american working person p in countries -- something more

like a country like china. we don't have the guts to stand up to it. china has said we're going to sell the highly manufactured items. china said no. we want to buy these, but you have to build them here for us to give you a contract. and when wind turbine -- they stole wind turbine from us, software making from us. even though they have cheap wages over there, with event intellectual property, you can't make an item. think it's time we go back to doing has things like china. guest: rick, i'm with you. i think there is a bipartisan conclusion with major corporations to look the other

way with the way that some countries manipulate their currency in china and asia. i think that puts american workers at a disadvantage. there was a bill in this congress and a prior congress where there was a bill for dealing with exchange rate problems. if china did not manipulate its exchange rate, we would actually lower the deficit, a bigger economy, more jobs, and the leadership from both the white house, obama, as well as republican leadership, prevenlted that bill from coming to a vote in the senate, even though it actually passed the house of representatives in the last session under nancy pelosi and the democrats. ti think out sourcing is a really big issue and causes major problems. people will say globalization

benefits us all. the reason is, that only is true if the winners compensate the losers. i've been looking around. i haven't seen any winners compensating any losers. when you think about that, the corporations don't want to pony up. host: corporations bring that up. outside the great recession there have been changes in the larger economy affecting the state of the american worker today. there is a comment from twitter. michael wants to know, as automation replaces more and more workers, how will the future worker need to adapt? >> the question that we will replace all workers with machine is not there yet. but again, if you make labor, pecially low-skilled labor with the checkout machine at the grocery store, then you will see

competition happening. i do want to actually bring a positive note. we are talking gloomy prospect as if things are going downhill. come on, anyone who was there in the 1970's knows that we're better off. people are better off. that's one of the things where the wage picture is not actually accurate. if you look at what middle class families own, the price of ings has gone down thanks to globalization and other things. that is not captured in the wage number. as for china, i understand the concern. i think the u.s. has its own manipulation of things, but some of us want to have it both ways.

the american people want to have it both ways with china. let's not forget a lot of american companies are actually bringing a lot of manufacturing back to the u.s. there is actually a clearer trend happening. the scheap labor is not the only thing that matters to this decision. we don't want chinese products but we are very happy to borrow chinese money. our relationship with china is much more complicated and the federal government is having extremely mixed feelings beyond what you mentioned there. host: you said in are some positive trends and good pieces of news in the labor market today. you recently published a piece

that said the number of involuntary workers is falling, even as voluntary part-time work is rising. is this a good piece of news? do you see any hope? guest: in the last six months or so, we have seen a pil pickup in job growth. that's a very, very positive thing. we need -- full employment would be something like 4%, and we should be seeing wages grow -- i'm for 4%. you don't really worry about inflation until you see the whites of its eyes. people think if wages start growing at 2% we have to shut down the economy, you hear from certain people. but there is positive news in certain areas. we need to go much further. i just want to comment on robots

and living standards. living standards, i think there is a question whether they have gone up or down, i think they have gone up, but they haven't gone up with the growth of income at the top on average. people should be a lot better. we calculate the typical middle class family should have another $18,000 if there hadn't been a growth of inequality since 1979. the data show that the typical household has less wealth now than it did in 1983. l that's the earliest we get. i don't have any depathe data for the 1970's. e top 9% saw their growth by 40%. the middle went nowhere. s we have 40% that have actually no wealth. let's get to the point that the caller made about robots.

because of them are we not going to have jobs in the future? history speaks to that. we have had technological years. on for when you have innovation, it does hurt people, but when that happens, it happens because employers save costs. i don't think people have run out of stuff they want. i don't think we have to worry about jobs. the other claim is that somehow robots are going to take away all the jobs in the middle and only leaching leave jobs at the bottom or the top. it turns out that since 1999, the expansion of occupation has been only at the very bottom, and in the top half, occupations have actually been stable or shrank. it is not really the robots that are leading to our inequality. i think it is really other

factors which have to do with policies that shake who has the leverage and the deal between an memployer and an employee. host: caller? caller: i want to comment on what both guests have said today. she says they have improved, but i don't see any benefit. in 1980, my brother worked building homes. he was making $18 an hour. he lost his job to someone that was willing to get paid $4 an hour. if you go to your company and complain, they will tell you, there is someone else willing to take your job. without immigration, it is never oing to get fixed.

i think this company -- i think companies really want slavery again. host: i didn't hear the last comment. caller: she said companies really want slavery again and people working for free. >> there has been an impact on wages. immigration is actually really good for wages and for economic growth in the country, with one exception. these are like high school dropouts, and the impact there is very small. it doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about it. that being said, everything is a tradeoff, and we need to balance the positive impact with the negative impact. if the benefits are better, we need to address what you would do for the people who are losing

on the immigration front. it seems to me immigration is a positive trend for most of the country and has been for a long time. caller: i want to stick to what the caller said because i think she has some points to what the situation is that the american people are in. we ration situation is, have 10 million people here that are undocumented and we are not going to deport and probably shouldn't. we know they are in a vulnerable position, they get exploited by employers. if we brought them out of the shadows and legalized them in various types of ways, they would earn more, and they would also have an impact on native workers that they compete against in the same occupations in industry, and then we could

add comprehensive immigration reform which can put limits on how many people can come in, unlike corporations that would like to bring in millions and millions of guest workers without basically any rights. but the point being made that employers have the upper land, you say they want higher wages, they say thanks, go get another job, there are lots of people who want your job. that's a situation they enjoy. they don't like it when they have to submit to whatever you want. if they can't find the kind of skills they want without having to offer training or skills, they claim there is a shortage and they aren't willing to raise wages. we have seen stories about truckers and other industries that claim they can't get workers. wages are far down from what they used to be. i think corporations are feeling enincredibly entitled, so unless we change the situation where

workers are the ones who are entitled, we are not going to move forward in a way that will improve the country. he guest: i agree with immigration reform. we need to get people out of the shadows. this idea that employers have always the upper hand and they are greedy i think is over-stated. if that is the case, the best way to give the bargaining power to lawyers is to have economic growth. more firms giving back the power to us. that will raise wages. how do we do this? -- if t 15 years overnment interference was the

solution, we would have seen massive growth under george bush, who opposed to president clinton grew by 5%. the government has tried a lot of things, and introduced a lot of uncertainty into the economy. they can't get their act together and do the one thing -- congress can't do the one thing they should be doing, which is to pass a budget. there are a lot of regulations that were passed -- again, maybe very well intentioned that produced uncertainty because it will take years for these rules introduced. i think what you are dismissing is this really big part of what is happening in the labor market. there is a recovery in the labor market.

we have a recovery. while the unemployment rate is going down, wages remain relatively flat. the labor market is sfuck in the d, and the government is trying to do a lot of things. i think it is time to do something else. you know, congress could get us a budget. congress could -- guest: this is the first time in many years -- there is a long-term agreement about discretionary spending. there is not a lot of uncertainty about taxes and budget. i don't get really, exactly, growth is the answer when you simultaneously say we have a recovery where people aren't doing well. recovery means there is growth. it can't possibly be that growth in and of itself is going to be the answer.

maybe you are saying we have to get to low unemployment and leave it there. perhaps we can agree on that. but i don't think deregulation, which is what you are implying is somehow going to get us to full employment. host: is deregulation what you are implying? guest: having a stable regulatory environment is important, and this is not what we have right now. there are a lot of rules which will be written. employers, for instance, they don't really know what's going to happen with obama care. when is actually the mandate oing to be fully implanted for employers. guest: you think that's really stopping people from ememploying others? host: we have a caller on the republican line.

what is your comment today. caller: have you did not been discussing the macro. i want to bring attention to my individual case. i work for a manufacturing plant. my wages have raised over 40% in the last three years. i could point to that specifically over just -- let me remind you, i work with legal , kers, undocumented workers all types of workers. pique people that do have education, people that don't have education. my wages have risen 3040% -- my wages have risen 40%. that came from hard work, showing up for work on time, coming in early, and leaving late. there are a lot of variables that haven't being discussed here in this dwace, because it is a complex issue. one is that i live on the north

carolina and south carolina border. 'm about 40 miles north of the south carolina border. the problem in our situation in the county, i think, is education. taxes in the surrounding county, the average unemployment rate is 16% in the surrounding counties. a lot of it has to do with tax rates and education. specifically in my area, we were scheduled possibly to get a manufacturing plant in the wilmington area, but that decision was made to go to south carolina. if you go 30 miles south, there re all kipeds of plants. host: we will hear from ken on

the democratic line. ken, what is your comment today? caller: for one thing, i'm reganomic d of these arguments. here's the deal, first of all, the corporate model is broken. corporations, when they start out, they grow, and that's how they increase their share price. if the c.e.o.'s fishery responsibility to raise the share price all the time so people will buy their stuff. ok. what happens is, once they reach a certain level of growth, then they start attacking the workers. they attack the wages of the workers and they go to other countries where they can get cheaper labor, cheaper materials that they have to -- you know, whatever they are producing. that's what the problem is. because if you continually have

to raise the share prices, you have to get that from somewhere. you can't get it from growing you your business, have you to ake it out of somebody's skin. guest: i understand what was said. i want to go back to what we talked about with economic growth. the c.b.o. put out a report about the state of our federal government spending and debt. it's not looking good. economic growth is nothing like what it has been in past recovery. even with rosy expectations big, one of the things we know will grow fast, government spending growing by 5.2%, if that's the projection, which is faster than economic growth. right there you have a problem.

now, when you have economic growth that's not really vibrant, there is no doubt that corporations get a lot of bargaining powers over their employee. i just don't want to believe that it is a general rule that employers are brutalizing all their employees. ine even in an environment that is somewhat economically depressed, people still have ability to go other places. you really cannot destablize ur employees without any growth. if we have a problem with corporations, we should have a problem with the unhealthy marriage between the government and corporations. the federal government and the state government have cozied up to big corporations on many, many, many issues and have given

them a lot of power. even laws like dodd-frank that was meant to tie the hands of these guys, this is not my area of expertise, but some experts are saying that in the end it has given them more power. host: one of the things we are hearing from callers is we saw the s & p broke a new record, best in 14 years, and the way the american people feel, what is the disconnect? guest: a lot of people think the problem is employer greed. i think the greed is there, but the problem is, the policy which we operate under, which is friendly to corporations, gives them the upper hand. i was hoping when you said

states and the federal government and corporations stops like where a company says, i have a factory i want to open up, tell me how much tax breaks are you going to give me to move to your place. that's outrageous. the fact is, people don't have many options. it is take it or leave it. you either daycare a job that they offer, or you -- you can starve. there's not benefits you can rely on from the government if you 6 -- if you don't work. glad they -- i am see improvement in their wages. can tell you there are many people who aren't getting ahead. and we know of one person who died in her car going between two and three jobs at different

duncin -- dunkin donuts. we need a system where people who are working hard are going to get ahead. that is not the situation. it is hard to see we need to provide more support for companies. they got the profits, they have the sfock prices going up. it is time for everybody else to benefit. host: next up is ron on the independent line. ron, go ahead. caller: back in the 1950's the definition of a job was where i could provide for myself and my family. now i don't know what the efinition of a job is. i'd like both of the guests to give me their definition and maybe the definition of labor statistics. one other question. when we say we create 200,000 jobs a month, does that include the ones that are lost?

host: so some technical questions there. larry? guest: well, you know, i think it is true that it is hard for one person to support a middle class lifestyle the way it might have been 30 years ago. and we actually have a typical middle class family, people are orking a lot more, in terms of people working more hours in terms of gains they have seen. if you want to know how much it costs to work in your area, i recommend you go to u.p.i.org and look at the family budget data. we show what does it take to live in every metropolitan area in the country. it is higher than property rates are. it is hard. when you talk about 200,000 job

owth in a month, the statistics show the growth of those jobs and lost. it doesn't include the 9% of the work force that could be growing as well. host: we'll try to get one more aller. host: ken on the republican line. caller: if you want to know the biggest drag on our economy, look out the back window. $400 trillion a year, that house that's costing so much money is taking from our economy. he guy talking -- canada

lowered its tax rate to 15%. in terms of economic growth that produced, their revenues because of the pro-growth competitive their revenue g.d.p. is the same as ours is. in terms of reganomics or supply-side economics, i would encourage the viewers to go to the bureau of statistic job creation numbers in late 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 inflation dropped to 3%. this is what took place. look at the facts. host: go ahead. >> we talk about fortune 500, but it is true we have fortune one here, right. there is no surprise then why the richest -- a lot of people

are benefiting from this. this is the richest country in the -- the richest counties in the united states are around here. there are a lot of people living off the federal government. i think a lot of things going forward, which is what we should be doing, we have spent too much shipping -- maybe not reagan, but maybe going forward, we need to say, what are our problems going forward? we have this explosion of entitlement spending which we need to address. we have this explosion of debt. there is a consensus, at least they have to address it in the long term. there are depiss cal -- there are fiscal -- we need to get our houses in order because of lower income people will be the ones

benefiting. ost: we are out of time. guest: the issue is not what the government takes out of your pay checks in taxes, the issue is what employers aren't putting in. host: thank you both for joining us this morning. guest: thank you for having us. guest: thank you. host: a full schedule can be .org. at book-tv >> this is being filmed, so be on your best behavior. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captions performed by national captioning institute]