gardner executive director of the institute of taxation. you can join conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ (202) 748-0003host: "the new york times" reports that the e-mail server and hillary clinton's home has no records of e-mails sent while she was in office. with the announcement that harry reid will not run for a reelection, speculation around who will run in his place. in the state of indiana, a religious freedom restoration

act was signed. reports are that the bill does not mention sexual orientation but some believe that the bill could allow business owners to deny service to gay and lesbians. in our first 45 minutes, we want to get your thought on states, and particularly businesses within the states, using these sorts of laws. religious freedom and businesses. your thoughts. (202) 748-8000 our line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 our line for republicans. and for independents, (202) 745-8002. if you want to post on social media, you can do so on twitter @cspanwj. on facebook, facebook.com/cspan.

you can send us an e-mail too journal@c-span.org. here's a story saying the nations battle for religious rights closed on thursday when indiana governor signed a controversial religious freedom law. his action followed two days of intense pressure from open itm opponents. senate bill 101 prohibits state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion. it takes effect on july 1. though the bill doesn't mention sexual orientation, opponents fear that it could allow businesses to deny business to gays and lesbians. [video clip]

>> today i signed of religious freedom restoration act because i support freedom of religion for every whosehoosier. today, many people of faith feel that their religious liberty is under attack by government action. one need look no further than the recent li legislation on obamacare. notre dame had to file federal lawsuits challenging provisions of the affordable care act that require them to provide coverage against their own religions views. back in the 1990's, congress passed -- by overwhelming bipartisan majority -- the religious freedom restoration act, which i added to the

indiana code today. it was signed by president clinton. it was co-authored by nancy pelosi, ted kennedy. when the religious freedom restoration act was considered by the illinois state legislator, state senator barack obama voted for it. those were all the right decisions. host: i get, that is the indiana governor. a little bad about the background, before he signed this bill into law, again, protecting businesses, particularly as this is an their religious rights. if you want to make a comment about the signing of legislation if your state has similar laws and you have experienced them firsthand and you want to comment on that as well, here is your chance to do so. (202) 748-8000, our line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

(202) 745-8002 for independents. again, you can post on a social media sites as well. just a little bit more from "the new york times" on the passage of this law. they had a front-page story saying, the indiana law opens the door for companies to refuse actions that imposes substantial burden on their religious beliefs. if that refusal is townsend court, a judge must balance the religious burden with the state's compelling interest in preventing discrimination. eric miller lobbied the new law and said that, refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage protects the christian

businesses. that's a little better about the indiana law. there are other states that have these types of laws as well. you heard the governor mentioned thae federal statue it in this. we will hear first from douglas in washington dc. democrats line. thanks for calling. what you think? caller: pedro, can you hear me? good morning. host: i can. caller: i'm a little jealous because i haven't gotten my "new york times" yet. the point is, i get very angry when this whole thing -- this whole topic is brought up. i am a civil libertarian and i'm very fascinated by the supreme court, separation of church and state, i think it is imperative. i think we did not -- if we did

not have a high wind this country, we would not be wonderful. yes, the greatest country in the history of the world that will ever be in the world. because of the separation. because of that respect for people's differences. that's when it comes down to. i've been going -- i could go on to my knowledge of supreme court cases, into my knowledge of the fact that it's very irritating to me that certain pharmacists for even personal reasons, will not give you the morning after pill. host: when it comes specifically to these kinds of laws on religious freedoms, what do you think? caller: pedro, that is even worse. i was listening a bit of a few moments ago before you picked up my call, and that's even worse. that makes me think of before my

time, what happened in the 60's, and before, after the emancipation proclamation of jim crow and african-americans in the cell treated one way. now we have state-by-state things like this. it's all about fairness and equality. host: that's our first call of the morning. thank you, caller, from washington dc. chicago, illinois. republican line. james is up next. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm a republican. i think this is a christian nation. we were founded on christian ideals and beliefs. i think also we are a nation of freedom and free speech. host: carol is next.

boca raton, florida. caller: this is my first time calling. i'm a little bit nervous. we need this great country to accept gays and lesbians. we all believe in something. someone created us. i believe it was god. i believe bill clinton had good intentions, so did dancy pelosi and ted kennedy. if we all love each other and we are all equal in the back bathroom, and our blood was the same color, we would all get along much better. host: 19 states, according to " washington post" have similar laws to what was signed in indiana. what was signed by bill clinton has similar language and prevents the government from burdening individuals to exercise religion unless it has a compelling interest to do so.

we will go next to ron. caller: good morning, pedro. two things. i like the open phones. i call and often. i would like to know if we could separate open phones from calling in to the congressman and eliminate the 30 day way. -- 30 day wait period. let's get to the point. we are calling in on religious separation of church and state. when these companies start, they don't start out as a religious company. they start out as a company. they don't put into their papers that they will be out religious backed company so that they want to have this protection. if they do, then they can have

this law to protect themselves i think. other than that, we party fought all of these fights before -- the spanish inquisition, the civil war, selma. we are all equal. that lady was right. we all go to the bathroom the same. we believe the same -- bleed the same. this is 2015. we don't have to start putting wedges back between our fellow men and women. this country was not founded on fighting between religions. it was founded on the bringing together of different religions. thank you, pedro. host: that was drawn from florida. here is correct from texas. republican line. caller: god bless you. god bless america. there was a preacher -- and that

is why i studied law for three months. i got my law degree. i have rashes on my body from stress and mental anguish. god bless you and have a good day. host: west palm beach, florida. this is ira. what do you think of the passage of these types of laws? caller: these types of laws and their passage all start from the united nations conferences, g 20 conferences. things of that nature. we have that type of situation going on as we speak where they are having a 21 country for him on business -- forum on business as of the air spring.

we, who are americans have that freedom to believe as we believe. the effects it has on business would be classified as discrimination or some type of f other separate issue. we as americans do enjoy that type of freedom. host: what you think about 20 states have similar laws -- the graphic provided by "the washington story" story? you heard mike pence say that there is a federal law in the federal government. he has left us. let's hear from michael in tennessee. democrats line. caller: everybody -- the religious freedom thing, everybody is free to practice their religion. discrimination, no. there should be no discrimination of any kind. i've got a hypothetical question .

if a gay guy walks into a business, or any one of these businesses that discriminate against gay guys or gay women whatever, how do you know they are gay for one thing? is there a test they can take or you will just say, i'm not going to serve you, i think you are again. how is that going to work? it sounds funny to me. host: specifically, these types of laws, what you think of them? 20 states are passing them and there is a federal statute as well. caller: i don't care about religious freedom. that's fine. if you want to be a muslim company, i don't care. you are free to enjoy your religion, any religion. but, to this committee against somebody and say your religion doesn't allow you -- or you think it does i'll allow you to sell to someone gay, this is my question, how do you tell someone is gay? host: "the indiana star" had a

series of articles on this law. this is one from a professor saying, i am a supporter of gay rights, but as and informed scholar, i support the proposed religious freedom restoration act. how can this be? the bill will provide a legal standard. the same test also governs federal law, which was signed into law by president clinton. some 30 states have adopted the same standard. applying this test, a unanimous u.s. supreme court recently ruled that a muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half inch beard that pose no wrist is security.

likewise, a 2012 decision protected outreach of ministry groups in philadelphia churches. this goes into the signing of this indiana law that took place this week that would give certain protections to religious businesses on grounds of religious freedom. there are advocates for same-sex issues that have concerns over how this law may be applied. you may have thoughts on either side of the law. the numbers are on the screen. (202) 748-8000, or line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202) 745-8002 . we will hear next from brian in san diego. republican line. caller: my thoughts on this is when i was growing up, it seemed like religion was used by folks for positive things and tolerance, what not.

nowadays, it seems like it has been hijacked to be used for intolerance and a lot of negativity. when you look at religious text, they are very open for interpretation. it seems like this is being interpreted i people with a negative agenda. it's becoming a problem. not just in the united states, but worldwide. host: what you think of these types of laws that have been passed? caller: i think it will start a lot of problems. it's deftly not coming from a place of tolerance. i'm sure if you look at some christian texts, you could interpret it in a much more positive and tolerant way. you can say what these people are doing -- as far as mike pence -- is wrong. they are judging when they shouldn't be and being very intolerant of others. host: jerry of decks from cookeville, tennessee. independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro.

it sounds ago by these people read the people's world. anyway, they talk about tolerance and is just opposite of that. host: go ahead. jerry, are you there? we were in that call there. you may have heard in the papers yesterday, several papers highlighting the fact this morning that senator harry reid, the minority leader in the senate, announced yesterday that he was planning on not running for another term. as part of that, he put out a video, available on the web, that gives a little bit of a nation as to why he made the decision. [video clip] senator reid: this accident has caused us for the first time to have a little down time to ponder and think that we need to be more concerned about the country, the senate, the state

of nevada then us. as a result of that, i'm not going to run for reelection. leader mcconnell don't be too elated. i will be here for a 22 more months. i will be doing the same thing that i have been doing since i first came to the senate. host: senator reid referencing the accident that took place on new year's day related to exercise that affected his eye. there is a shot of senate. in light of the decision yesterday, what happened? joining us to talk about it, amber phillips. she posted a story earlier this morning saying,? what no now? what are those last month going to be like? guest: thanks for having me. these next 22 months is legacy time for senator harry reid. as you mention, i wrote today

he will be focusing on issues that he has always champion including renewable energy protecting wilderness areas infrastructure. he will also focus on issues that he believes will help protect the middle class. as he mentions in the video, he still wants to be a sword in the cipher majority leader mitch mcconnell. he said yesterday, he truly believes that being minority leader is just as an important position. host: what challenges does he face getting this legacy through with the republican senate? guest: one could argue that the republican senate has been just as dysfunctional as passed senate. right now, mitch mcconnell and harry reid don't seem to be having a great relationship saying i die. we have major nomination such as the eternal general for united states being held up for a long time. republicans are frustrated the democrats are helping with --

aren't helping with the he would traffic and build. there are a lot of issues that harry reid and mitch mcconnell would like to get through the senate, but they can't see either ion. that will be a major hurdle for someone like harry reid that would like to move through tax cuts for energy or bills to protect land in nevada. host: has he endorsed anyone? guest: he has. as the this in nevada doesn't come along very often. you can imagine there is a long line. senator reid's endorsement in nevada democratic politics matters a lot. he came right out front on friday to endorse catherine cortez masto. she has had a long successful career as attorney general. she is also critical vote in

nevada. there are a lot of other strong female candidates on the democratic side. dena titus, is also considering a run as well. you have a even let me get to the republican side, where there is a much longer line. we have people like the current attorney general, the current atto lieutenant-governor. thost: you didn't mention brian sandoval, the governor. where does he stand on all this? guest: you are absolutely right, some republican insiders do feel like ryan sandoval is a popular republican governor in nevada. he could still run. he has indicated that he is very focused on a contentious legislative session in the state and passing a big text message there. he is waiting for the end of this legislative session in june

two announces the sessio his decision. he has indicated that he probably won't run, but things could change. host: talk a little bit about the endorsement he gave. in washington dc as to who his successor should be as minority leader. he had a number two, but intercept endorsing the third. guest: exactly. he endorsed senator schumer from new york. it seems to cause a baluster. it's not clear the goings-on behind the scenes. the senator said he was fine with that decision. host: amber phillips of the "las vegas sun the ago what do you

think might be interesting to know about this announcement? guest: every supporter i talked to almost universally painted senator reid as not the type of politician to send his retirement days on a porch in las vegas. it seems that this downtime he had while he was home for several weeks with his eye injury allowed him to reevaluate what he wanted in life after the injury. he may not still be the guy who will be kicking back on a porch and las vegas. he indicated yesterday that there are a lot of things he wants to do outside of nevada politics -- outside of being united states senator for nevada. this decision supporters told me, took a lot of courage for senator reid. he's not someone who wants to give up the senate. he decided this was what was

best for him and his wife of 59 years. host: before we let you go, is there any indication that senator reid will stay in washington, or will he go back to nevada? guest: is a great question. he does have a home in both places. i'm not sure. if i had to put money on it, i would say he would spend a lot of time in las vegas. he loves nevada. host: amber phillips has posted story about the decision by harry reid to not run for another torerm, thank you for your time. indiana now has a religious freedom law. 20 other states have similar laws. there is a federal law that could reflect what's going on on the state level. we want to get your thoughts on it. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. for independents, (202) 745-8002

. let's hear from james from texas. democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. thanks for c-span. this is just beijing. anybody could use a religious excuse if they want to. if you look at the history of theocracy, a always turn to violence for those who disagree with them. muslims, jews, christians have been murdering each other since they existed. it's absolutely crazy. we have legal slavery in this country. it doesn't make it right. we have legal segregation with jim crow and this country. it doesn't make it right. just because you pass a law, it doesn't make it good. we should fear fundamentalism. if you remember, manifest destiny, we used god's excuse to murder people and steal the country from them. we drove native americans into

genocide, using god as an excuse. they are doing the same thing against the palestinians. manifest destiny, god gave us this land. this is crazy. this is religious bigotry. anybody that says anything different can try and sell you a swap man. host: freddie is up next. caller: first of all, i think people should open up a dictionary and look at what the word tolerance means. i don't think people understand it. if you're having a gay wedding and you invite a photographer to take your pictures. and the photographer's christian and refuses to do it because of their principles, go to another photographer. it's not that hard to figure out. the same thing with a floral shop. christians, jews muslims, any religion has the rights too. just because they don't necessarily agree with your gay

lifestyle, they're not doing anything to stop you. you can still be gay. just go to another shot. go to another photographer. what's the big deal? i think that intolerance is coming from the gay-rights activists and their liberal supporters. they are not tolerant of jews christians, or muslims. you have to be tolerant and leave people alone. if someone wants to be christian or muslim, let them. if someone wants to be gay or bisexual, let them. you don't force people to participate in things that are against their beliefs. tolerance. look it up, please. host: that was freddie from california. here is treason from new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. similar to freddie, i think there are fine lines here that are being blurred. if i own a business at a gay person comes in to be hired, i can't discriminate. there are laws on the books for that. as a business owner in the

country, i have the right to exercise my religion. not just worship and private exercise it. if i don't want to buy disney in a gay ceremony i should be free to do that. i can't say you can't work here that's wrong. there is a fine line. i think you quoted a legal scholar that i agreed saying there is a means test that can go to litigation. it seems more about gay marriage then not wanting to participate in that. host: the report in the indiana law doesn't mention sexual orientation, but some are taking that away from the passage of this law this week. this is "the hill" newspaper looking at former secretary of state hillary clinton saying the head of house committee on benghazi a raised on e-mails

from her server as serving as top diplomat. hillary clinton decided to unilaterally delete all e-mails from the personal server. that is representative trey gowdy. he goes on to say, it's not clear precisely when she decided to delete all e-mails from her server. apparently she made the decision after october 24, 2014, after the department of state asked that she delivered the record to the department. it goes on to quote elish elijah cummings saying, she has nothing to hide. this confirms everything we artie knew she already producer record and did not keep her personal e-mails, and the select committee has already received her e-mails related to the attacks on benghazi. jimmy lives in texas. go ahead. caller: good morning.

listen, i believe they have the right to do anything they want to do. this law is its own private property. i mean, if they don't use any city, state, or government infrastructure, or utility. it's their right. it's their business. when they cross the line and are using services that everyone has to pay for, then i think they have gone just a little bit too far. you know, we have a right. when government steps in our lives, they don't have the right. they shouldn't. they should be doing things that are important. like a and attorney general, for instance. i mean, it's like they're on a playground with our lives.

you know. just to make a show. i showboat. host: bill is from pennsylvania. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today, pedro? host: well, thanks. caller: i'm calling as a republican and a gay person. i'm completely -- i'm concerned about the idea that rfra is supposedly stopping people from exercising liberty. it's the other way around. we've always allowed individuals to exercise -- to maintain their own privileges of privacy, and doing their own -- following their own consciousness. without being forced by the

government to violate them. i disagree, by the way, with a person earlier who said it was christians versus gays. that is utterly despicable. for those who do believe that their religious freedom will prevent them from providing individual services, that should not be -- the government should not force them to do otherwise. the hobby lobby case was very much like that. if you disagree with that, antiabortion people. still, individually forcing them to provide insurance that makes them, in their minds, and accessory to murder is something that simply the government should not be permitted to do.

individually, people should be left to practice their own beliefs. gee, i wish i were more articulate about this, but it's the best i can do at 7:00 in the morning. host: that was built from pennsylvania. "the washington post" writes on the budget and a little bit about what we may see come out of it. in past 52-46, with all democrats voting against it. it would balance in 10 years and have a $3 billion surplus in year 10. rand paul introduced an amendment to increase defense spending by nearly $190

billion over the next two years a notable move. he proposed to cover the cost by trimming spending in other areas. he protected his physically conservative position. another potential to thousand contender, marco rubio from florida, introduces own plan, but it was ultimately defeated. we will hear next from married. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. this is a blatant unconstitutional -- he doesn't even need to be called governor for what he did -- mr. pence needs to be removed from office now. we need to have separation of church and state. i don't understand how it is allowed to be creeping up in state by state legislation. it is discrimination against the gay population.

they need to understand the gay population will not tolerate it. they have money, sense, and brains. let the lawsuits begin. let the boycott began for any store that participates in something like this. indiana also is going to start to lose any kind of entertainment shows. the basketball association is already complaining. it's all about money in the end. if indiana wants to keep money coming into its state, they need to repeal the small that this dummy just signed. host: to the caller's point, "the new york times" points out that the ncaa made a statement on this issue adding that opponents of the laws seized on indiana's role as a corporate headquarters, urging companies to suspend plans for conferences and conventions in the state.

salesforce.com, a technology company, announced that he would cancel all companies iny events in the state. the uproar was pronounced in the technology industry, which wi has emerged as a champion for gay rights. the founder of yelp said it was unconscionable to imagine that yelp would create, maintain, or expand business in a state that encourages current nation. bill is next. caller: hello. with respect to the lady that just call before me, she said about separation of church and state, she is right in that respect. if the government passes any type of law with respect to marriage, that's a legal issue. with respect to church, that's a

religious issue. the government has no right to tell any church what they have to do and what they are not allowed to do. if a person, if they pass a law and say that two men can be married or two women can be married, that's fine. as far as the church is concerned, if they have an objection to that, they should not in any respect the forced to try and murder marry those people. as far as businesses, if they believe they don't want to participate in a same-sex there that should be there right. there's one more thing i would like to say. i might offend some people. i don't feel the you can be discouraged or a unless what you are doing is based upon something that was given by god. not something that you did by choice. i don't know if anybody has ever come up and said if a person is

gay or homosexual that that is something designated by god. if it's something they chose you can't discriminate against a person for something that they chose. you can refuse to accept it or refuse to go along with it. like a person as a business and someone comes in and they have hearings all over their face and tattoos all over there arms and neck, and they want to be hired to work in a place that sells high dollar clothing. and they say, i don't want to hire that person because i don't feel that they should be working for me in this position, all lose customers. they should have that right. it's something they chose to do to themselves. host: that was built in new jersey, weighing in on the religious freedom laws the

indiana and other states have. let's hear next from joe in massachusetts. caller: good morning. to me, this is an americanized version of sharia law, that if a person were to go into coffee shop and the coffee shop thinks that that person is gay, they have the right to refuse service. host: maurice'se is next. illinois. republican line. caller: good morning. obviously, again, i guess the gays, they obviously don't care about black lies. they would have made a huge fuss about the gentleman who was be in michigan and the young black man that was killed in new york. all they care about is forcing sodomy on the mindset.

it's unfortunate that they push these events and the media goes along with it. when it's a black person that is being killed or beat, there is no call to boycott any industry. i think it's just their gameplan that they have and the media is a pawn that they used to push it. it is unfortunate. host: that was more reason illinois. janet yellen, for those who watch the federal reserve, one thing they are watching for is when the interest rates may be raised. there is a story this morning saying yellen continue supporting the recovery, noticing that payroll averaged well above the pace needed.

but, we still have a ways to go. she said that she is cautiously optimistic about the economy citing employment gains increases in house hold wealth, but warned that not all sectors are doing well. the recovery in residential restriction remains subdued adding that the economy has been remain quite weak. we will hear from hank next in fort lauderdale, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. this reminds me, as a kid, being in sears. they had a separate jigging fountain for blacks and a separate jerking fountain for

whites. this country is about equality. if you want to have religious exemptions, have them in your church and home. don't spread that across the country. it's a bad example for kids coming up today. host: why not allow religious people who run -- what about religious people who run businesses? caller: they run business. they should be serving the people who walk in the door. host: theater is next. massachusetts. independent line. caller: how are you? i just want to say that there seem to be a lot of people woefully uninformed about the constitution. i'm no constitutional scholar by know there is no verbiage about separation of church and state. all it says is that the state will not sponsor any particular denomination.

the mention of separation mac between church and state came from a letter, i think to thomas jefferson, because these date was going to sponsor the congregationalists, and he wrote back saying that there was a wall between the church and state, meaning that we will not favor one the nomination over another. as far as race is concerned there is no sin and having a different color skin. whatever happened in the past concerning that was wrong. if a gay person walks into a bakery and says, i would like to buy a cake. fine. sell them a cake. then, they say, it is for a gay wedding. as a person of faith at that point, you are being forced to participate in something that you believe to be a sin.

can't they just go find someone who doesn't care? host: william will be the last call we take from south carolina. democrats line. guest: i think this opens up a pandora's box. back in the 50's, -- if you are religious, say, i don't like life, my religion doesn't like black, but you walk into a restaurant and they say, i can't serve you because you are black. is that what the law says in indiana? i think it should be repealed. host: that's the last call be will take on this topic. coming up, we will look at a new report that shows sobering statistics as to the state of

african-american women in the united states. we will be joined by melanie campbell of the national coalition on black civic or dissipation. then, we will be quit michael rubin of the enterprise institute. on our "newsmakers" program which you can see on sunday at 10:00, we will talk about 2060 with jennifer horn and the iowa republican party chair, jeff kaufman. they will talk about two dozen 16 specifically and their states goals in vetting candidates. [video clip] >> there were problems in 2012. some thought that romney had won the state, it turned out that rick santorum won the state. are you taking steps to make sure you don't have voting

problems in the future? also, are you try to find ways to make the caucuses more exhaustible. there has been talk to try to help younger folds with children participate, or military veterans, or others serving overseas. mr. kaufmanm: absolutely. it sounds like a cliche, but we will learn from the mistakes made four years ago. it is incredibly important that both the republican party and democratic party in iowa that have a caucus process as perfect as they can make it. we put together a blue-ribbon panel. we bared all, in terms of what the process is, changes that can be made, and we looked at it not only in terms of mistakes made in previous caucuses but what can we do to enhance that. yes, there will be steps made. what's also exciting is that we

will be announcing a very important initiative in a few weeks that is not only going to enhance the caucuses, it will make it more transparent. it will make it more credible. i think the nation will be very pleased with where we are heading. we are taking that very seriously. in terms of access, i just visit with the democratic chair this morning. annie mcguire is our new democratic chair out there. we are arm in arm in terms of how we make these caucuses better. one of the things we will do is try to open this up. and i savyy try because there is something bureaucracy that we have to jump through in d.c. host: melanie campbell joins us at the table.

she is of the black women's roundtable summit. why are you meeting here? guest: this is our annual summit where we have women and girls that come to washington dc to focus on the public policy priorities that we had. on thursday, on capitol hill, is our public policy day. we will focus on the loretta lynch nomination, discuss voting rights income inequality issues and that is what we did on thursday. friday, we spent a full day on looking deeper at those policies that are our priorities. what we call our community day. what do we need to do for our young people and really prepare them for the future, and figure out how to continue to focus on

solutions. the report that we released is a guide to know what is going on. we have an area that we focused on hearing from women from the state and share what they are doing -- the ones who are on the front lines of the work. host: you mentioned the report. what are you looking at specifically as to topics relating to black women in the united states? guest: the number one issue is economics. what comes to the unemployment rate, like women -- although the unemployment rate went down overall for everyone else, there was an of cake for black women at 8.9%. last year it was 8.2%. we know that the economy is growing, getting better, but the numbers tell us that black women's numbers are not getting better. we need to focus our attention and work in collaboration.

i partner with dr. avery jones my editor. she is a brilliant woman who helped us deal with these numbers and make sure we know what we are talking about. it's not for research purposes but organizing purposes. host: the eight .9%, according to the bureau of labor statistics 6.1% for latina women and 4.2% for white women. why are the numbers so high? guest: part of it is the types of jobs available for black women. we lag behind. the south, the deep south, in part, we are not faring as well as in the labor market. i'm not a leader expert, so i will not sit here and professed to be that, but the reality is we know even with education, we

do not fare as well apples to apples. some of this is that sitting -- systemic and comes to bias in the workforce. we try to understand, where on the growth jobs. we focus on income inequality from a public policy standpoint, but it's also economic prosperity on the other hand. we are actually really focusing on an engaging women on issues of entrepreneurship. we had a small business organization meeting with women who may want to start their own business and women who are in business. women of color specifically are growing a knowledge of new

in opportunity rich -- entrepreneurship. when it comes to wealth, for example, black women hire at an average rate. pittsburgh is one of the places we do a lot of work in. the average well for a black woman in pittsburgh is five dollars when they retire. you are dealing with family issues of a poverty rate. we are trying to do our part in this. we are civic engagement organization. we can't be about empowerment of our people if we don't address these issues and partner with a lot of our colleagues as well to do this work. host: being in washington dc, i suppose you want the federal government to take on some of these things? specifically, what are you looking for from the government? guest: part of it is things like paid sixck days, paid leave.

so that quality of life issues can be addressed so that they can work. black women are mostly heads of households. that you address issues that have an impact to keep a quality job for a long. of time city can grow wealth and try to impact poverty in a real way. host: if you have questions for our guests about the state of black women, a be something in the report prompted a question for her. here it is how you can call. (202) 748-8000, democrats. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. (202) 745-8002, independence. you can send tweets too

@cspanwj. is the group partisan? guest: not at all. some are republicans, most are democrat, but some are republican. and independets. host: one of the things you look at alongside unemployment rate is salaries. you rank salaries by state based on the average salary for black women. the ranking of the top was maryland. with a median earnings of $45,000 that's followed by california and new jersey. on the lower end, south carolina . guest: the south. i'm from florida. i live in bc -- thed.c.

the south is where the majority of black people live. there is a need to look at the deep south. those women are really focusing in on trying to adjust these issues at a local level. we have is national summit that we have now, and then we will have regional summits going on to dig deeper inside those states. we come together to have a collective strategy. it is really a bottom-up approach that we take so that this is not coming from sitting in bc, but with the women we work with every day who are my colleagues, as well as a policy network, including faith-based leaders to come up with strategies together. host: as far as the both salaries in the south, what is driving that particularly? guest: their right to work states. most of the states in the south are right to work states,

meaning they have anti-labor policies. black people became middle-class labor -- collective bargaining, having quality of life highway jobs, came through public-sector jobs. public-sector jobs are being cut . it has a major impact on black women who are in that market talk about teachers, health care workers, things like that. and historically, for black people, we fared better. last year, we had a dive. it helps us to know that we need labor friendly policies that help bring up the masses to have a better quality of life. and the job that allows you to build wealth.

we are not faring well with homeownership. in the great recession, if you will for the black population, we were very hard hit when it came to homeownership and foreclosures. the recovery process is going to take a while. it requires so much opportunity for us to find ways to come together around policy that would help bring everybody a better quality of life. at the end of the day, everyone -- should everyone have a better quality of life? that should not be a partisan issue. host: our guest with us to talk about these issues, the lines will be on the screen. we will hear from veronica in atlanta, georgia. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am in atlanta. everything you said was correct.

regarding the educational sector, i have a bachelors and am going back to grad school. how do you see education as affecting black women, especially young ones. the second part is like wealth issues -- 30 years of growth regarding black wealth. can you address that? thank you guest:. -- guest: thank you. i spent 20 years in the lancet. i worked for the mayor of atlanta. atlanta is my second home. thank you, caller. when it comes to education, what we found out in the report is that we are not faring as well. what i was talking about, apples to apples. part of it is to really look at -- what we are trying to do in our efforts over the weekend is looking at where are the high growth jobs. what do we need to be doing?

the millennial generation -- the idea of having multiple income income streams is becoming more and more of a way of building wealth and having a higher income bracket, so part of it is trying to figure out the technology that is there right and you have gone through -- and as you get a better education, how do you find a way? we try to figure out and part of it is how to figure out how to build that wealth, and if you do, how do you have multiple incomes? that means you have to work more. where is the balance in that? we have to work on family/life policy to provide a balance, to have family medical leave if you're having a child, and

things like that, where you actually have paid federal -- family leave, which is an issue for us. the other thing, been able to know how to find those jobs. can i ask -- can she come back? ? --host: she is gone. caller: i was going to ask what she got her degree in, but if you go to black women's roundtable facebook, hit us there, i would love to continue the conversation. host: i would like to point out that you have a ranking by education, and the education to the earnings potential. how do black women fair compared to the more they are educated, compared to how they earn? guest: when it comes to education and higher attainment it is a little bit better, but

it is really, kind of, not that much better. that is the problem we are facing, right? you get this education, it helps, that when it comes to white women, a fair higher. for us, it is really trying to figure out what are those systemic things going on in the workforce that cause it. we know there is bias. i do not like to spend a lot of time talking about biases, but bias is there when it comes to hiring practices are a lot of this goes on. a good colleague of mine with the eeoc, and part of it for us is figuring out what we need to do. these numbers say -- i am an organizer, not a statistician -- what does this say about what we need to be doing to address this data? how do we did down deeper?

that is where we are trying to go with the black women's roundtable. that is why we're over here, and we have these policies we are trying to promote. i know we are going to talk about loretta lynch, and i hope we do before i leave, but we are trying to figure out how to address public policy, which will take a long time, and how to we get to addressing it on a state-level? that is why we are going from washington d.c., into the states, where you have a state policy of raising the minimum wage, for example. that could fall more in the lower-wage jobs with an education. people are graduating, having degrees, bachelors masters, and still i have to go to mcdonald's. there is nothing wrong with mcdonald's. we had a woman from maryland with us yesterday, and she has eight mcdonald's that she owns.

she started out low-wage, and she now owns eight. that is not the norm. host: let's let somebody else ask a question. this is avis in memphis. democrats line. caller: yes, i am a senior citizen, and i am looking to relocate, and where does she think i would benefit the most as a senior citizen and how does one become a member of her organization? third, what is her organization doing -- i'm a veteran. i served my country for 21 years , and i seek promotions for males, often, whereas for females, black and white females, it is not there as quickly as it is for the mouse. what -- males. what are you doing to address

that problem? thank you, everybody. caller: --guest: i miss the first question. host: she said where would be the best place to live? guest: maryland, d.c. -- the quality of life is higher -- it is an oxymoron. you look at these places where there are high wages -- i think she said she is retired. a lot of people move from the south because there is a lower cost of living. she is a retiree, the south ms. lower when it comes to -- the south is lower when it comes to cost of living. the second question i heard her say was how do i get involved. i will not give her a facebook page. i will give her a phone number -- 202659 49 59.

my mom is 82 years young. she still goes at it. she does not work, but she is in the community all the time. you have women that are part of the roundtable. we have girls that we mentor, but young women that we have part of this roundtable that are college-age to seniors, and people that are retired. we would love to have you engage with us depending on what state you're in. two of 26594929. host: jeff, from pennsylvania. you are next. caller: in light of the rapid systemic inequalities that exist in america, and have always existed, why is it that we are not really discussing at all any -- at any level, with any intellectual honesty, the issue of reparations? is it a nonstarter for blacks

and whites to at least have a discussion, a truth and reconciliation commission about our countries past -- country's past and how we got to the place where we are? i think we all hold prejudices based on slavery, and we have never addressed those prejudices. every time one of these fergusons or new yorks pop up, we act surprised, and we have this discussion on race, but it is a benign discussion if we do not discuss our past. guest: in 2009 i attended the conference on racism in south africa, and i can more how difficult that was on the concept of reparations. ron daniels out of new york does a lot of good work on the issue of reparations, and bringing a 21st century strategy to that. i would say ron daniels is the

person -- my go to person on the strategy. i know commerce in conyers for years -- congressman conyers for years, has try to address the issues of reparations. the reality is race is still an issue in this country, and it has never fully been addressed. we continue to have the drive to push on this issue of race and reconciliation, how we find a way to find a balance, and deal with issues of the past. these numbers come in some ways, reflect that, because we still have the kinds of policies that do not look at the facts, if you will. the fact that you have an unemployment rate that is higher for black women, that issue should be addressed because of the issue for black women, or any other demographic in this country. what tends to happen, that i

have experienced is even being on the show -- some people have a problem that we are doing a report on black women as a dividing mechanism as opposed to a factual mechanism in finding ways to have a solution. you're right, it does not been fully addressed. host: north carolina. independent line. darcel. caller: good morning. i would like to ask, what would you suggest to women of color black women in particular, on entrepreneurship? i currently live in the south and i see at my aarp plus plus age, rampant racism. as a certain -- at a certain age, if i cannot produce, i do

not think i need to try to expect someone else to help, and if you could suggest, in my area, how i can be a part of your organization? i started legal ladies for legislative leadership and it is difficult because i'm doing everything, basically, myself. as a designer, i work with mentoring. that is more of a senior role now. host: sorry to interrupt, where do you live again? caller: i live in leland, north carolina now living in the south, i never knew how racism presents itself. i joined a sorority. i have been in civic organizations, liens and qantas club but when they see my face a lot of people are like wow

where are you from, and i always say earth. [laughter] if you could tell me how we can join forces, because i am not one to give up, and i like to help my people. i can tell you i have been in situations, and i have strict knowledge. i see racism because of how i look and the prison is -- prism is how dare she. this is sad because it is personal for me. host: darcel, -- go ahead -- caller: i do not care if you are six hours away from a phd, i do not -- i do not expect someone to give you a job. caller: we started to --guest:

we have actually just wanted to build on in north carolina. our convener there at the happens to be with us this weekend. we do have a roundtable network we started in north carolina last year. so, you talked about the fact that entrepreneurs -- that is why we have a big component of our work in educating women about a partnership because we are trying to address a couple of things, one, which i've mentioned, is when it comes to large partnership, we are growing in entrepreneurship -- entrepreneurship, we are growing in entrepreneurship. it is usually a one-woman shop, if you will. to get capital, you have to build your business out, and have the technical skills that you need enhanced to build that business. so we are there with you when it comes to that. if you contact us, i will say the same thing -- you can go to facebook, or anything like that, and get back to us.

we can tie you with folks. erin is in north carolina, and we can connect you. i know they are doing cooperative economic strategies through blueprints and other areas. north carolina is fertile, i think, for entrepreneurship, for what i am learning from our leaders in north carolina. i would love to connect you to federal resources and state resources. host: from our republican line. val, florida. caller: thank you so much. you are beautiful in every way ms. campbell. thank you for bringing so much to the discussion for african-american women. i do not have a lot of time. i will say things at the top. one of the forefront issues we have to deal with as women is being advocates and activists for one another. our health and wellness. i once weighed over 600 pounds, and by the grace of god i have gotten rid of close to 450

pounds. i was in "people magazine," and "good morning america." i figured out it is not about dieting. our health and our wellness -- we are dying from health disease more than any -- heart disease more than any demographic. i want to continue to be the great forces for world good that we are. i want to add my voice to the roundtable to help people like me who are powerful and have so much to offer and give just to be able to improve and optimize our health. caller: thank you -- guest: thank you very much. when i leave here, i am going to do a power walk with the women. it is called a look like -- a love you more power walk. we have health and wellness along with economic security and prosperity. just connect with us on facebook.

black women's roundtable, and we will be back in contact with you , and would love to continue to figure out how you can get involved, and we can build a movement together to deal with these issues, because that is what it is going to take. host: the ranking of women with the uninsured is also part of the report saying in massachusetts it is 4.6% of black women that is uninsured. and that grows in states like kansas. caller: that is for people over 65. host: that is for the under 65. what does it say for the rate of black women that are insured>? guest: we think it is the aca that helps. where you had medicaid expansion, we are doing better. where we did not we have more

uninsured. that impacts mortality, not just for black women, but any of us. that is a policy decision by state leaders who have opted out of the afford the care act, and implemented the kinds of opportunities so that everyone -- it has been a while, but the most important thing for me and our organization is what can we do using the political process the civic engagement process and advocating, but also, getting more and more involved in practical impacting issues around quality-of-life? so, one of things that would impact the ability to build wealth is whether you have a high-wage job, or you are a low-wage worker, the impact health can have on you. you can retire and do well. one of our partners is aarp. they have something called life

reimagined which is very interesting because of the entrepreneurship needs of retirees. health care can wipe you out. it can be wireless. it can be yourself, -- he could be a parent and euro -- it could be a parent, and your wealth is gone. if you do not have any to start with, you could be more impoverished, even in retirement years. so, for us, we very much are involved and really trying to push for full of limitation of aca. host: tennessee. democrats line. tim is next. caller: good morning to both of you. one thing that is important to parents, mothers and fathers, is to teach our girls it is important not to have babies before you are married, because

that is going to doom you to poverty. it is hard to escape. i work for a large corporation and icy black women -- i see black women in particular have a difficult time balancing work and family. a lot of the women are very bright, smart, and they should be progressing on a job come but they are not able to because they're not able to balance work and family. they have responsibilities at home, and they are not able to progress on the job as other people because they do not have the help and the support system that they need. caller: well, -- guest: well, one of the things we promote is mentorship, and mentoring our girls. it is why we have a women of power summit. all of our delegations bring girls with them and they have their own track to figure out things like self-esteem, and really understanding, and talking about the issues they have concerns about. that is part of it.

the teen rate has gone down in this country. it is also about having a balance, and self esteem about waiting to have children. i am not here to advocate for here to have or not have children, but i believe for us, make sure that our girls know they can't be -- they could be all they could be, and we have to address the issue that impact our daughters. even with the criminal justice system, we are supporters of my brother's keeper -- the black women's roundtable is -- and working with the white house focusing on women and girls of color, to address the social issues that impact them. we have been involved in some of their listening sessions. they actually utilize the report we had last year as part of their thinking and strategizing. so, we are very much involved in

that. so, at the end of the day, we have to make sure that we care about our daughters and our sons together, so that is how we will try to address it. host: how are black women doing in the political process? guest: we are doing pretty well in the political process, right? we have more congressional representation. 18 black women in congress now. we actually have one of the first republican women in the congress with utah's mia love. when it comes to mayors, we are doing better. we have the mayor of baltimore that is doing great work in baltimore. that is part of it, too, because in urban america -- i worked for a mayor. i mentioned that earlier. we still live in urban environments. one of the things we are promoting is we actually have a

training area, running for public office. the biggest challenge we face -- one of the examples, is giving the kind of support that is needed. last year's elections, as an example, in georgia, georgia had five black women on the top of the ticket for the democratic party in the state of georgia, but they got limited support from the party apparatus, and those women each got at least one million votes without resources. these were not just women who walked up and decided to run for office. they won their party -- labor -- the secretary of labor for the state of georgia, for example you talk about issues dealing with economics, right, and job opportunities? you could have had a black woman as the head of the department of labor in the state of georgia. part of the issue is becoming stronger when it comes to

running for public office. you also have to address the barriers that black women and women of color definitely face. women overall have a harder time -- even if you are an incumbent, you have a harder time running for office to get the support that is needed. women are still a highest vote, yet we do not see that reflected. over 50% of voters in this country. we should see more women. we need more women in that building. in melanie campbell's opinion if we had more women in congress, we would have my bipartisanship going on. host: you mentioned lavette alledge. there was a group of you -- loretta lynch. there was a group of you outside of mitch mcconnell's office. what were you doing? caller: praying. i am not kidding. we reached out to mitch mcconnell because we had

concerns that the vote for her confirmation to be the attorney general, the first african-american woman to be attorney general in these united states, has been held up for 140 days. she has had to wait to be confirmed. at least have the vote taken. we thought we would be going visiting republicans and democrats, and thinking them for confirming her. nobody is saying she is not highly qualified. she is imminently qualified yet, this has never happened in history of this country for someone to have to wait this long. so, we found out they were not going to vote, and they're going to go home for easter. dr. skinner who heads up the network, and we got together with other women, we decided to talk to him, and urge them before they left for easter. we did not get the meeting, but we did talk to his chief of staff, and others, and we prayed

, because we are going into the easter season, and we feel that she is being treated unfairly. the american public has those sentiments. what is different about loretta lynch? she is having to go through this. she has been confirmed twice. she has been, what they call in d.c. vetted, so why, after all of this, going through all the hearings, she's been held up? we were told there is a bill on sex trafficking that the minority leader is holding up senator harry reid, and we need to talk to senator harry reid. well, the reality is senator mcconnell is the leader, and we know he is a fair person. no one is accusing him of not being a fair person, but we want him to step up, and lead, and

push us to a vote, so that she is not treated unfairly. and the issue of sex trafficking and tax women of color -- impacts women of color tremendously in this country, so we do not feel that she be a political football either. if she has done all of this, why not go and pull this for a vote, but for -- is it because she is a black woman? host: dennis. florida. caller: good morning. good to see. i have a question. i would like to know your thoughts on the image of black women in the media? when you have what i have heard to be number one shows like "empire," "scandal,", and some of the images you see of nicki minaj beyonce, etc., do you

think that help, hurts, or has no effect on the image of black women in america? guest: well, there's a lot of debate on that. one says you are showing black women as powerful in the hollywood setting, if you will. then, on the other side, you may have some things like a folly when it comes to "housewives," so that debate is out there. there is a need to have positive images in hollywood, and that affects us. one of the things that happened yesterday at our summit with the girls, they actually came, at the end of the day, they came back and told us the two images they were concerned about, and one of those images -- one of those was image. this came from girls under 16. no one coached them. we know there is a concern about

how to make sure that we push for better equality better reflection of girls, black women, especially for this generation, because that is highly impacted by media. you talked about the issue of media, and tying it to politics. we know that women are treated so differently in the media when it comes to running for public office and how they are treated. so, the issue of media, and how we have packed that, is part of, also, the solution that we see -- how we impact that, is part of, also, the solution that we see. image, how you feel about yourself, and self-esteem, has a lot to do with that. host: there is more to this report. if people understood, they can find it online. guest: yes, they can. they can go to facebook, and we will make sure we will continue to engage them with black

women's roundtable. host: this is melanie campbell, the convener of the black women's roundtable, analysis no -- the national policy network and the national coalition on black civic participation. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: next, we'll talk about the middle east, iran, iraq, what is going on. michael rubin will connect those things going on. later, what is the impact of state and local taxes on the average taxpayer? we'll be joined by matthew gardner from institute of taxation and economic policy. all of that as "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> this sunday on q&a erik

larson on his new book. erik: the question gets complicated when you talk about what happened with the lusitania? why was it allowed to enter without escort, without the detailed warning that could have been provided to the captain but was not, and this has led to it in speculation about was the ship essentially set up for attack by churchill? it is adjusting. i found no smoking memo and i would have found a smoking memo, if it existed. there was nothing from churchill, or to jackie fisher or someone else, saying let's let the lusitania go into the irish sea because we wanted to get sunk.

nothing like that exists. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> this weekend peter wallison says it could happen again. sunday afternoon, jeffrey sachs on a development plan to counter global issues like poverty political corruption, and environmental decay. today, at 10:30 a.m. eastern, a discussion on the last major speeches of abraham lincoln and martin luther king jr.. sunday afternoon at 4:00 p.m. the 1965 "meet the press" interview with martin luther king jr.. find our schedule on c-span.org. call us at 202-626 3400, e-mail

us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest of the morning's michael rubin. he is a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute talking about all the things going on in the middle east. as we start, everyone is waiting to see initially what might happen with iran when it comes to its nuclear program. where do we stand as far as negotiations are concerned? guest: right now it looks like there could be a preliminary agreement this week. what is important to remember is when it comes to the joint plan of action, what we are trying to achieve is an agreement about how to have an agreement, so this will not be the end of negotiations, rather the end of the beginning, rather the

beginning of the end. host: what do you mean? guest: if there comes a resolution tomorrow, what it is supposed to do is create a fame -- framework with what all sides want to see in the final agreement. the number of centrifuges. how long an agreement would last. the basic details, but the technicalities would need to be worked out. host: how have the iranians responded? how forthcoming have they been in meeting the requirements the united states wants? guest: well, the iranians have adhered, for the most part, to what has been outlined in the joint plan of action. the criticism in the joint plan of action, however, is it was really only one slice of the entire pie. at the same time, the international atomic energy agency has been complaining that the iranians have not been adhering to the commitments made to them, especially when it comes to possible military

dimensions of an iranian nuclear program. host: for the five countries or so that are involved in this bullet point what they want. talk about the timeframe because that is a concern -- how long this might last. guest: ultimately, if you put five countries in a room, you will get five or six different opinions. all countries, six countries have radically different opinions. what the americans want is for a resolution with concerns with regard to iran's nuclear breakout ability, their ability to enrich uranium to levels that would be much greater than that needed for energy program. the russian of the chinese -- the russians and the chinese want to see -- of course the iranians one economic relief in all of this -- want economically can all of this. this began in 2005 when the board of governors found iran to

be in noncompliance with its safeguards agreement. the question is how you want to bring iran back into compliance, address the concerns in six unanimous, or near-unanimous subsequent united nations resolutions. host: and i suspect if the deal comes through, how do you do oversight to make sure they are holding up their end of the bargain? guest: this is why the so-called sunset clause has become controversial. the sunset clause -- the idea that after 10 years, for example, the sanctions regime, and so forth, all the additional cinches will be listed -- lifted and iran can become a state again. the iranians are saying we will start with the day of the signature. in 1991, when the south africans gave up their nuclear program, they provided the international atomic energy agency with 20 years of data with regard to its material so that the iaea could

certify that everything is accounted for. the iaea has complained that by not providing this data, it will make declarations of they have given up the military program and possible. host: explain to us -- we have heard the lifting of sanctions which i think iran wants, versus the suspension of sanctions. talk about what those terms mean and what is important in this discussion. guest: first of all, one of the important things to remember is there are different kinds of sanctions. ironically, because people think as republicans has more hawkish it was under bill clinton where you have the toughest sanctions on iran in 1995 1996, for example, executive orders, which were unilateral, and when oil companies shifted operations to european subsidiaries or

partners, we had a controversy with extraterritorial sanctions placed on european firms. on top of that, you have these un security council resolutions that ban aspects of iran's nuclear trade, and iran wants to get this lifted so they can get back to developing their economy. before negotiations began, iran 's economy shrank 5.4%. on top of which, you have had a rapid decline on the price of oil, which will make it hard for iranians to make payroll. host: michael rubin is our guest. talking about issues in the middle east, iran being one of them. let's hear first from eric in texas. you're on with michael rubin. caller: hello, am i on?

host: you are on. caller: ok. the people that killed the most isis fighters make me the most safe. the people that kill the least isis fighters make me least safe. people that do not kill any isis fighters do not make me safe at all. the people that give the speeches in march do not do anything at all those europeans marching around paris went home and did absolutely nothing because they are a bunch of cowards. i want to see some french, german english, and italian soldiers with their arms and legs blown off, is what i want to see, and i want to see them barred and slaughtering 100,000 anderson people. -- innocent people. thank you. guest: i am not sure what eric's

question was about, but he raises the issue of the islamic state, which has been growing in iraq and syria, and is now a problem in libya as well. the president of afghanistan ashraf ghani, when he came to washington, said his biggest fear was the advancement of the islamic state there. one thing to remember is they only impact the nuclear issue -- they do not cover issues related to iran's ambitions iraq with, syria, yemen, and they are not addressing issues that our concerns to others in the region such as iran's ballistic missile program or terrorism. you asked before about sanctions. iran wants an immediate lifting of sanctions, but some of the american sanctions are not tied to the nuclear program, but issues such as terrorism. host: mike is from new york.

independent line. go ahead. caller: hi. you are so much for taking my call. i want to keep it simple. it is just very hard for me to fathom that we can trust the current administration of the iranians with the ayatollahs and the mullahs. on the same day secretary john kerry came out and said we're making progress, there was a gathering with the head ayatollah and chants of "death to america." i just do nothing we can have these talks with the current administration. we will have to wait. anything that gets done will just a waste of time. guest: i certainly share mike's concerns with this. i am much closer to where mike is on this with regard to my skepticism. there are a couple of concerns i have.

before he became president, he was a nuclear negotiator and the national security council chairman of iran. he was national security council chairman of iran in 2001 when the former president threaten to develop nuclear weapons and drop them on israel, and he was silent on that. likewise in february 9, 2005 he gave a speech to the assembled iranian hardliners in which he outlined a doctrine of surprise, where he argued that iran becomes victorious every time they love the americans into, complacency, and then they surprise them, deliver a knockout blow. why verification become so important is is this a repeatable we have seen in the past with deception? host: we have heard about health issues with the supreme leader of iran. if something happens, will it affect negotiations? guest: ultimately it does.

the supreme leader is about substance. the president is about style. if you were going to transpose the relative power of the president of iran to the president of the united states, you're are not talking about the president, you are talking about the secretary of agriculture. the supreme leader controls everything. when the supreme leader dies and there are rumors he has cancer now, ultimate, in theory, what happens, is you have 86-member body which convenes to choose the next supreme leader. this is a way happened one time before in 1889 when the ayatollah died. at that -- 1989, when the alcoa died -- when the ayatollah died. the question is what consensus could you have if you do not have consensus readily available, and the other issue with the nuclear program is whether the much more ideological elements of the islamic revolutionary guard force will settle for anything less than a hardliner -- rather

-- whether we can have a cycle of radicalization, which is what many political -- rather than what many political scientists assume, which is a modernization. host: go ahead. you are on. caller: i wanted to ask a question on iran vis-a-vis israel. i am concerned about the verification issues you raise. in verifying iran's dismantlement of existing infrastructure, versus being able to verify or detect any covert nuclear activity -- is there a lot of daylight between the u.s. and israeli positions on these issues that could lead to a major, catastrophic, or misinterpreted kind of outcome? thank you. guest: bob asks a relevant question.

there is daylight between where the u.s. and the israelis stand, and more broadly, when the u.s. stands and the international atomic agency stands. when it comes to the international atomic agency, by their own bylaws, they are only able to inspect declared nuclear sites. if there is suspicion, overwhelming evidence that iran has a covert side, the iaea cannot send inspections there. it is one reason they were not able to inspect the plutonium processing plant that the syrians built in 2008, which israelis ultimately destroyed. if i could add one more point, a lot of people say even if iran develops nuclear weapons, what is the big issue? they are not suicidal. what if they are terminally ill. we always talk about iran's

nuclear program, but we never talk about who would have custody of it. it would be the most ideologically pure members of the national guard. if they will have a regime change what will stop them from launching an ideological prerogatives, and that is where the traditional ideal of deterrence breaks down, this is what people in the middle east are so nervous. host: michael rubin with the american enterprise institute. martin. new kensington, pennsylvania independent line. caller: thank you, c-span. i hope mr. rubin goes further concerning the region. the reconfiguration will take place regardless of the islamic's capabilities. an independent kurdistan is key.

the kurdistan regional government does not -- demonstrates self-government. the peshmerga have proved their willingness to sacrifice the independence of their nation. leaders of kurdistan, ranging from [indiscernible] each has contributed -- thousands whose names we will never hear have second fight for their people, their nation. they live there. they continue to be persecuted, oppressed, occupied by militants, and in search for international recognition. there are many in the region that have been relegated to the status of minorities due to the partitioning of the region after dismantling of the ottoman empire, after its defeat in world war i. guest: martin, -- host: martin

thank you for the call. we will let our guests respond. guest: martin brings up a point. it is not about iran and the middle east. before i turn to the kurds, let me say that when people talk about the sunni and the shia regions, you might read that the shia are only 10% or 50% of the muslim world, so what is the big deal? the big deal, and why we're hearing about this now, is between the mediterranean and iran, there is 50/50 parity, so there is the idea that everything is in play. the kurds are the largest people without a nation, and i have spent a lot of time in iraqi kurdistan, and also last year i spent a lot of time in syrian kurdistan, inside syria, with the same election that was fighting at kobani. what martin brings up, is absolutely right, this is one of those issues at play. this is where, all too often, we do not seem to have a very sophisticated conversation in washington, or more broadly, in europe, and in the west. the case is often presented as

an emotional argument, and ultimately if the kurds decide they want to go in dependent that it's going to be their choice. we need to consider is what the second order of impact is, simply so that we can make adjustments, for example. we have water sharing agreements that go back to 1986 between syria, turkey, and iraq, and suddenly you have an independent kurdistan, which means we consideration of those agreements. we also applauded the new minister who will be coming to washington because when he took office and replaced all mock he his predecessor, who had constraints with the rest -- with the west, he agreed to an oil deal with iraqi kurdistan. the day he did that, folks in southern iraq said we want the same deal, and certainly, if they want federalism, for example, baghdad is bankrupt. when it comes to kurdistan

become an independent, you have the issue of precedent -- what will it mean for saudi shia that produce a lot of the oil in the eastern province? what will it mean throughout the region? we talk about a partition of turkey down the road? the leader of the pkk -- his image has gone from that of terrorist, to that of mandela and ultimately will have to deal with that should the peace process in turkey continue. host: the subject of sunni and shia play out directly in what is happening in yemen. can you explain what is happening currently, what is the difference in the development of the groups, and the role iran plays as well? guest: this is a fascinating case, pedro. i used to live in yemen. there are shia that are completely different from a we see in iran in northern yemen. they did not have a shia identity.

over the last three years, and the press, we suddenly see the iranian discovery of the who these -- booties. they -- houthis. they were preaching sectarian hatred, and they were trying to sponsor these schools inside of northern yemen, where the houthi s live. they have had dissemination mayday march on sanna, and ultimately the question is whether they are under the thumb of the iranians. originally, they were not. one of the things that is quite interesting, and it shows you that we are not always just divorced from what happens in the middle east, the houthis originally did not want to go

into the capital of yemen. they waited for a reaction. now they are moving further down. they seized the seat, judicially, of the yemeni monarchy, which is overthrown in the 1960's. here is a thing -- we have a sectarian fault line. the houthis are accused of being like hezbollah, a proxy of the court, and iran. the saudi's have been afraid to start action because they are for this will impact them, so we have an air campaign against houthis. we might have syria 2.0 going on in yemen, starting right now. host: michael rubin is our guest from the american enterprise institute to talk about conflict in the middle east. democrats line. go ahead. you are on. caller: yes, briefly, incidentally, apparently this individual rubin, has a better command of the middle eastern

chaos, or whatever -- melting pot -- whatever you want to call it -- for heaven sakes, he may better serve america as secretary of state than this john kerry individual. beyond that, some years ago, in florida, i worked for persians, as they like to be referred as rather than iranians, but i was given the impression that within tehran, which is the capital of persia, there is, in fact, a thriving jewish community, and this is so conflicted to the presentation that the media gives to me, as a jew. jew by birth -- my mother was jewish. that is one thing. the other thing i cannot figure is how come they routinely show people purportedly minute -- manipulating radioactive material, and they're were in a

fiber-cotton mask to protect themselves -- wearing a fiber-top and -- fiber-cotton mask to protect themselves from nuclear toxins? none of that makes any sense. maybe ruben could elaborate on that. thank you so much. guest: daniel, thank you very much for your question. first of all, as a republican, i should not do this, but in defense of secretary of state john kerry, one of the things we need to recognize is there is no magic formula in the middle east and not everything that is occurring in the middle east is sickly reaction to what the night -- is simply a reaction to what the united states has done. that said, there are impacts and our policies i wish the obama administration would have done differently. when it comes to the difference, and daniel between iranians and persians connecting 75 they said stop calling us persians, and stuck on us around, and it

would be like angela merkel saying stop calling us germany call it deutsche land instead. it would not be a different country. when it comes to iranian nationalism, when people say it is persian, it is not iranian usually that is done in terms of language because we talk about parsi, tarry, and dark. the reason we count them as three languages is so that some officer can get a triple language bonus because they really are dialects of the same language. different from each other only as british english is from australian english is from new york english. so, we have that issue. when it comes to the nuclear program in her ron, when you see people and facemasks, they are not amateurs. they will not step into a reactor wearing just masks. in any sort of high-tech situation, you just need to be

dust-free, so the mother guards or to keep it clean environment. host: the iranians have said the nuclear program is for energy needs. is there validity to that? guest: this is the reason why there are suspicions about iranian claims these are just for energy needs, pedro. first, they say they want a completely indigenous energy supply. they also say they want eight nuclear reactors. if you refine uranium to enriched uranium to fuel it reactors, you can do that for about 15 years. 41-third of the price -- for one-third of the price, they can fuel their country. that is suspicion number one. number two is expansion -- they had nuclear triggers or with metal trying to shake hemispheres which have no role in energy cycle, but only a role in a nuclear bomb. last, there is the question of

additional protocol. multiple focus on iraq after 2000 three when i turned up they did not have a nuclear program but they forget in 1991, it was despite the despite 11 clean bills of health from the international atomic energy agency, the iraqis had hidden a nuclear program. this led the iaea to increment something called the additional protocol, which was meant to tighten up inspections. well, what iranians did was they sign the additional protocol but they refused to ratify it. the weight of lawyers wrote it is when you sign the additional protocol, you get additional technology sharing. when you ratify it, that is when the inspections kick in. there is always been a great deal of suspicion about why the iranians have done that. host: georgia -- this is john in georgia for our guests. independent line. go ahead, john. caller: good morning, mr. rubin good morning, c-span. a quick question -- what are the

differences between netanyahu and obama as far as these talks? what are the big sticking points, especially when the u.s. policy is iran is not about to have a nuclear weapon? guest: ok. caller: why is israel and the u.s. not more together on these talks or negotiations? guest: i hate to say this, but a lot of the difference between benjamin netanyahu and president obama seems increase make the personal rather than motivated by politics. the question is what the red line should be --iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon, or the ability to become nuclear weapons capable, meaning develop the knowledge, the material, you are just a turn of a screw away. the difference between the two could be as little as a week but what prime minister netanyahu would say is no one has the human intelligence in iran to know when they have made

the decision and put the components together to build a nuclear weapon. the other major concern that israeli prime minister bibi netanyahu has, of course, is how limited this nuclear agreement seems to be. number one, it does not address the elastic missiles or the terrorism in which iran has engaged, and there is a lot of concern about the sunset clause, whether you will have symbolic sanctions on iran, a symbolic inspection regime on -- four 10 years or so, and basically you lift them scot-free without cleaning -- coming clean on the past. what the international energy agency wants is iran to come clean about past activities, and pedro, what people forget, is when you look at this antagonism between netanyahu and obama, we saw the same thing in 1994 when the korean agreement was to be signed. the president of south korea

gave an interview to "the new york times," raising a great deal of doubt, and the personal animus that resulted between president clinton and the government of south korea was ferocious. a we are seeing now is deja vu all over again. host: michael rubin, the president of afghanistan was in town. he addressed congress on a lot of issues, talk about afghanistan's role on fighting terrorism in the country. here's a little bit of what he had to say. we'll get your respond to it. [video clip] ashraf ghani: can be an enduring success. your support will not have been in vain. afghanistan will be the graveyard of al qaeda, and their foreign terrorist associates. [applause]

president: -- president ghani: never again will our country be host to terrorists, will we give extremists the sanction to plan their plots. host: michael rubin, what do you think? guest: ashraf ghani is very worried. though he has been a breath of fresh air, the fact of the matter is he is worried the united states will pull the carpet on -- carpet out from underneath him. the money is drying up. when i was in afghanistan, people were concerned that no matter how sincere ashraf ghani could be people would look at international aid as a reason to embezzle money quicker. likewise, if you have international agencies pullout, and this is where ashraf ghani is truly worried, the only other jobs people can go to is the illegal economy, the narcotics trade. that is ceballos is with

terrorism can't -- ceballos is with terrorism, and ultimately, ashraf ghani can worry about the spread of the islamic state there. people can say what does the islamic state have to do with afghanistan? the reality is what did al qaeda have to do with afghanistan? this is a major concern. i spent time with the taliban in 2000, and the biggest difference between the taliban and the islamic state is the taliban was desperate for recognition as a legitimate government of afghanistan. the islamic state does not agree to any of these notions of host: when he says it's going to be the graveyard of terrorism, what's behind the rhetoric? guest: he's trying to convince the americans do not withdraw on any sort of timetable but to make sure there are no uncovered spaces.

under the soviet union, afghans had a functioning air force. they really don't now. while the afghans do and can fight, they lack a logistical capability to get to where the fight is. it's one thing to be willing to fight the taliban and or islamic state when you know that if you are wounded, you will get medevac. when nato pulls out, there will be no medevac. there is a real fear that therefore afghanistan army is going to go to ground. afghans have never lost a war. the simply defect to the winning side. host: jacob from new jersey. democrats line. caller: good morning. i love c-span. guest, great talk. there is a lot of lack of understanding about the role that the shia-sunni divide in the region plays in politics and

shaping the players and the conflicting terrorist groups. if you could explain maybe the who was who and who is allied with who and why. that would be really helpful. guest: and very, very good question. the difference between sunni and shia, this goes back to a succession dispute as to who was going to lead the committee of muslims and islamic empire after the death of mohammed. everyone agreed it should be the most pure, wise muslim but those who became the shia, the partisans of ali said god chose is the property for a reason, therefore it is natural to pass to his family. between the mediterranean -- a 50-50 parity. some of this sectarian discord

you are not seeing other where come elsewhere in the islamic world. in central asia, for example. when it comes to the basic differences between the two, it is political. iran is shiite. you have yemen, the houthis which are a shiite offshoot. you have hezbollah in lebanon. this is a major concern. back in 2005, the king of jordan warned of a shia creep and throughout the region, talking about the scenario we have now where all the shia accused us of being sick colonists. sometimes in america we exaggerate the discord.

take was happening with the islamic state in iraq. is that a result of an insensitive shia government? if that were the case, why do you have the islamic state taking root in libya where you don't have a sectarian problem? this has not been in the news much, the holy centers in mecca has been quietly reaching out to our laws are, university in cairo. one of the most important centers of suny learning. they are quietly learning behind the scenes. -- sunni learning. there is some silver lining but it could be worse before it gets better. host: robert in florida. republican line. caller: hi, mike. correct me if i'm wrong -- all 16 security agencies in the united states and the israeli

mossad are in agreement that at this point, iran has not taken any actions to make a nuclear device of any kind. throw in the idea of mutual assured destruction, which has been in effect in the world for 70 years, if no one launches a nuclear miss and at a superior power because they know they will be destroyed. we are supposed to believe that iran will ramp up their nuclear powers and they don't care whether they live or die, just so they can launch a missile or to add an overpowering israel and we will go to war -- this is what is going to happen here because when this deal is broken up with obama, the end of the day, we will bomb iran and that is what will happen, just like we bombed iraq. we're supposed to believe this is the reason -- please explain this to me. israel is manipulating --

guest: actually, i don't work for an israeli lobby and i would advise you to not look at someone with a jewish last night and assume -- that is anti-somatic and racist. i want to correct you on some of the assumptions you stated as fact. back in 2011, the international atomic agency published and annexed to its board of governor report -- you can google the board of governor report, november 2011 and there is a whole annex of possible military dimensions. the national intelligence estimate has concluded that iran has been experimenting with nuclear weapons components. the 2003 report concluded that. the 2007 reported that they had ceased work but iran has done this work.

they're asking for iran to come clean about its past activities because that is necessary in order to verify that the secession continues. when it comes to this idea of mutually assured destruction where this breaks down is the idea that it works if the iranian states that you had major uprisings in 1999, 2001 and 2009. if this happens again, what is to stop the revolutionary guard from doing this? the major concern of the united states, if iran develops nuclear weapons, it will feel so secure that it could lash out conventionally. there's concern with regard to a cascade of proliferation and instability in the middle east and north korea playing "look at me." then all bets are off. one of the iranian negotiators had said that north korea is the

model to emulate rather than a regime to condemn. today, the intelligence community says north korea possesses nuclear weapons. host: one of the resources they are investigating -- should they get to the point where they're able to inspect and do the job they need to do? guest: this is the concern. the idea whether the rush to have a diplomatic deal is trumping the iaea's ability to enforce that deal. they have said, as in south africa, they need at least two decades to trace all the material and ex. they are not willing to give that. if you have inspections -- you set of video cameras. in the sensor fusion cascade -- centrifuge cascade.

someone is sitting there watching that monitor -- that's not how it works. once every 17 days, they will send someone to that facility and make sure the seal is still sealed, take the videocassette put in another one, fly back to vienna and watch it. in the 17 days before this material is reviewed, whether iran can do anything to break out. the other issue given iran's past cheating is whether there is any additional mechanism to look after any potential covert nuclear program. they are only allowed to look at facilities -- in the past, the problem we've had with iran is the iranians have try to build covert facilities to bypass inspection. host: omar from indiana. independent line for michael rubin.

caller: pedro, i will say what i hopefully need to say in 20 seconds or so. not only 16 agencies have said that iran does not have nuclear weapons. i remember seeing hans blitz on c-span. why don't you get somebody from the iaea on television and ask them these questions? mr. rubin, it does not make one anti-soemetic to believe that you and others are trying to push our country into fighting israel's enemies. the last one on the list is iran. we love our country unlike some of those names i mentioned, more

than we love israel. for you, two quick questions. tell c-span viewers how many nuclear weapons does israel have , the only country in the middle east who has them. any high school student can do a google search to find out what is the second option -- samson option. guest: thank you for your question. it does make you a purveyor of hate to assume that those who agree with you are the only ones who love their country and those who disagree with you are those that don't. recent polls have shown that 70% of americans feel uncomfortable with the way this deal is going. i hate to think that 70% of americans belong to some secret cabal that you and robert are aware of. the intelligence community has said that iran does not have nuclear weapons right now but it

has also said there after nuclear weapons capability. the biggest difference between the iranian nuclear program and israel's nuclear program is that iran signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. if that is the legalistic answer you want, that is why there is so much concern. iran has threatened multiple times to use that. they have threatened to use nuclear weapons against israel, arguing that one bomb could eradicate israel and israel responded with the samson option or something like that with retaliation, the islamic world was big enough to withstand that. while controversial, the former president of iran said iran is going to wipe israel off the face of the map. some scholars have said this is mistranslated. he meant to say that they will wipe israel off the face of time.

when you google that phrase, you will find a number of photographs taken in iran in which this phrase is used on banners and tripped over missiles and that is one of the reasons why there is such great concern. not everything in the middle east he vaults -- revolves around israel. we look at the problems that exist in the middle east and israelis and saudi's and egyptians and kuwaitis are all on the same side of this. host: there is a front page story in the wall street journal taking a look at israel and palestine. what is the context? guest: that is another sideshow going on in the middle east. you've never seen such an active time. you have a great deal of frustration within the obama administration with netanyahu

and the policy of constructing settlements. the palestinians, their current president has decided that the purity of negotiations with the oslo accord has not done what they wanted to get so they will start undertaking unilateral actions at the united nations. the reason the israelis objected this is because they see the united nations as biased and the oslo accords and everything needs to be addressed between the israel and palestinian authorities and outlawed this unilateral action. with netanyahu last week being reelected, obama was hoping that would not happen. now faced with several more years of not only prime minister netanyahu but a coalition that is more right wing in israel than the previous coalition.

obama is starting to raise the possibility that vetoing resolutions -- he might abstain or support. host: michigan city, indiana. democrats line. dave, go ahead. caller: thank you. good morning gentlemen. i wish you both a happy and pleasant saturday morning. i really enjoyed the discussion. i would like to give a warm welcome to mr. rubin. i enjoyed his presentation. anytime i have seen you on television. my point in calling this morning is to ask about your view of the effectiveness of republicans in the senate writing a letter to undermine the efforts of negotiations with iran.

what is your view of the logic of sitting down with iran to begin with? and negotiating to try to prevent the development of nuclear weaponry. i would like to bring your discussion back on shores and ask you to relate to us about the propriety of congress meddling in diplomacy. i'm 61. i may kennedy democrat. i have never seen anything like this. i would like your viewpoint on this. the logic of dealing with iran and of the political propriety of the separation of powers. thank you both. hope you have a great day. guest: two very good and on the

point questions conveyed in michigan city. with regard to negotiations with iran, i'm all for resolving these through diplomacy. they she was whether you only have diplomacy or you have war. the question is what sort of diplomacy you have. the united states simply has not used its leverage. by giving the iranians sanctions relief just to keep them at the table come the analogy i would make is like giving a five-year-old dessert first and then asking her to come to the table to eat her spinach. it does make me uneasy, what the senders are after is defending the prerogative of the senate. while it might be the first time we've seen a letter like this, you have a situation where bring the bush administration when they wanted to isolate assad in

syria against the wishes of the state department and the white house went off and met with assad to break that isolation. you have had the senate and the white house clash on this before. each defending their prerogative . when it came to the letter the senators published, i would rather have it as an op-ed or addressed to all the p5, these coalition of nations, members of the security council. looming over this idea, how strong is any agreement, how lasting is any agreement going to be when the senate has not signed on -- let me put it this way. i'm comfortable with the letter but uncomfortable with the

president of trying to ram through an agreement of such international significance without sharing it with the senate first. host: you think they broke the law of this logan act? guest: only one person has been prosecuted in the history of the united states under the logan act generally, no. i don't think they broke the logan act. they are expressing the will of 47 members of the senate in an open letter. what would have violated the logan act as if they -- is if they tried to negotiate on their own with the iranian strictly. host: jacob in new york. republican line. caller: you sound very knowledgeable in this area. i want to ask what i hope is a simple question and i have not heard it come up before. if the position of iran is it wants these nuclear programs for peaceful use, why shouldn't the

deal be as simple to respond to what the claim -- what they are claiming? why not set up a program where whatever the uses are they want for peaceful purposes are controlled by some type of international authority and if it turns out over two years, five years or whatever is agreed to, that can be turned over to iran and just leave it at that? all this other stuff is just for lack -- flack. it seems to me it can be done through some kind of international commission or international fund and then be turned over to iran to run it. thank you very much for taking my call. i will hang up and listen to the answer. guest: i wish you were the

negotiator. one of these issues that has been raised up. why does iran need to enrich uranium on its soil if it can be guaranteed a source of low enriched uranium fuel to its reactors? they have refused that and that is part of the frustration. what you say is a very logical answer to a problem which exists and would bypass a lot of the distrust with regard to iran. we have made concessions which don't make that possible anymore. host: one more call. illinois appeared go ahead. caller: us telling iran they cannot mine for uranium would be like china telling us we cannot drill for shale oil. i read a book a couple of years

ago -- he had been on c-span book tv. it looks like this iran nuclear bomb thing is not going back more than 15 years -- is there any truth to what you brought up back in the late 1990's, the cia program called marilerlin which use the defector from russia to try to deliver bogus blueprints for a bomb to iran to somehow get them off their path or somehow gain more knowledge of what was going on because they were in the dark with respect to cia -- we knew about iraq and iran going into war in 2003. i would like to note there is any truth to that merlin program

where they try to give over blueprints to iran. guest: thank you. excellent questions. with regard to the merlin program, all i know is what i've read in the book. i believe there has been a counterintelligence investigation as to the person who leaked that material to him which would seem to indicate there is some truth to the matter. i have not said that iran should be able to -- should not be able to mine uranium. if you want a legal basis for why they cannot enrich, that goes back to the international atomic agency board of governors which found them to have violated their nuclear nonproliferation treaty agreement and six subsequent resolutions which have forbidden enrichment inside iran. host: thanks a lot.

we will have our next guest talk to you about how your state is doing when it comes to state and local taxes. matt gardner will join us, next. margaret hamburg delivered what could be her final remarks before stepping in as -- stepping out next week. here is a some of what she had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> we have a number of expedited review programs that help to speed the development and availability of medical practices to treat serious diseases. we have priority review, accelerated approval and now we have the breakthrough therapy designation. we are seeing development and review times decreased significantly with exciting new therapies entering the marketplace much sooner than the patients who need them.

last year, we approved the most new drugs and almost 20 years -- and almost 20 years. 41% of these new drugs were first in class products resulting in a breathtaking array of truly innovative new therapies for patients. the majority of these new drugs were approved using some kind of expedited pathway. today, contrary to what many would say, fda approves drugs faster on average than all other advanced nations and the vast majority of the time the u.s. is the first country in the world to approve important and novel medicines. substantial improvements are being made in the efficiency of medical device reviews as well. moreover, we have accomplished this while remaining the world's gold standard for safety and effectiveness. yet, we all recognize that despite these successes, too

many diseases still await treatments. serious public health needs such as treatment for alzheimer's disease are not being met. in response, some have said that fda regulation is a principal obstacle to the development of innovative treatment and suggested that fda's procedures be fundamentally reconsidered. i strongly disagree. in actuality, regulation when it is done right is not a roadblock. it is the pathway to achieve meaningful and lasting innovation. smart, science-based regulation instilling consumer confidence. it levels the playing field for businesses and decreases the threat of litigation, prevents recalls that threaten consumer trust and industry reputation and letting a huge preventable cause -- it's burrs industry to

excellence. -- spurs industry to excellence. host: we are joined by matt gardner. he serves as the executive director -- talking about state and local taxes and their fairness. why do you think this topic hits home for people? guest: there is growing awareness in the nation as a whole of the problem of inequality. there is growing awareness of the fact that a lot of people are perceived as not paying their fair share. we know there is widespread evidence that big corporations are not paying any taxes in many cases and the best off americans are finding ways to avoid taxes. it is interesting to see, if you add up all those people, who was paying the most and who is paying the least. host: who is paying the most and the least? guest: surprisingly, almost every state -- there is a lot of diversity among the states.

in virtually every state, it's low income families paying the most. the best off families paying the least. nationwide, the poorest 20% of americans are paying about 11% of their income. the best off 1% are paying half that. it is a pretty big gap. host: is that because of how tax codes are written? guest: in general, it's because state and local governments have three big ways to raise revenue. income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes. in two of those taxes, they tend to fall most heavily on low income families. it is hard to do so in a way that is not going to hit poor families the hardest. if you want to have a tax system that approaches being flat, you have to rely heavily on the

progress of personal income tax and hardly any state does that. host: you define three sets -- three definitions of taxes. can you give brief explanations of what they are and how they work? guest: progressive means the less you earn, the more of your income you are paying in tax. proportional, the more you earn the less you pay. you are paying roughly the same percentage of your income in tax no matter what your income level is good. progressive is as your income goes up, you will pay a little more of your income in tax. host: when it comes to actual states, are there states with progressive policies? what are those states? guest: there are no winners in our study. every state has unbalanced regressive tax systems.

having said that come of states that come close to achieving fairness are states like minnesota, vermont washington, d c. these are states where even though low income families are paying more, the gap between what they are paying and the smaller amount is the best off not that big. host: you list the terrible 10. washington, for the texas, south dakota illinois -- florida, texas, south dakota, illinois -- guest: they don't have a personal income tax at all. there are nine states that have figured out a way to get by without having a personal income tax. most of those states are on this list. some of them are on the list because they have especially low or flat income taxes where everybody is paying at the same

rate and some of them are on that list because they rely especially heavyily on sales tax. host: personal income is the equalizer. guest: it is the only equalizer. that is an important thing to know. it is pretty repugnant that you will rely on low income families as the engine for paying for state and local services. the only way to remedy that is to have a progressive personal income tax. host: our guest with us to talk about the impact of state and local taxes -- 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. for independents, 202-748-8002. matt gardner joining us. a little bit about your organization. guest: we have been around since

1980. we were founded in the wake of the biggest fiscal policy catastrophe at the state level. california's proposition 13. lawmakers and the public identified a tax reform solution , capping and limiting the growth of property taxes. that was not the best solution for the problems they faced. california's education system bears that out. our goal has been to provide pro bono advice, mostly data explained the difference between good and bad policy. host: if a state uses a progressive or regressive -- is at a red state-blue state kind of thing? guest: absolutely not. the most unfair taxes them in the nation's washington state. -- is washington state.

if you look at incremental development, there is a red state, blue state distinction. there are real historically-based reasons for why a lot of the states are why here they are. there are big shifts being proposed right now. in some places like kansas, being enacted where governors and legislatures propose to cut the personal income tax or eliminate it entirely. in theory, make up the revenue by ta hiking the sales tax. that obviously would make things worse. kansas, you mentioned the terrible 10 -- there has not been a whole lot of movement on that list. kansas jumped and that list with a bullet entirely because of the

changes that governor brownback has pushed through there. host: you can tell us your tax situation when you call in. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. beverly in union city, georgia. democrats line. caller: good morning and i'm glad to get the opportunity to speak to you guys. are you there? host: go ahead. caller: i moved from michigan i've been living there for 50 years. i moved last january. i did my 2013 taxes for michigan and i did it late and they received in june. michigan is one of those states

that started taxing our pensions. i'm 65 years old. michigan has not yet given me back my refund. i have called and called and called. the state says we need to see your feds. i mailed in my federal taxes. then they needed to see my social security statement. i sent that to them. in november, they say we got everything, it will take 4-6 months before we give you your refund back. i call these people almost every month. do you have -- does a citizen have any other recourse when the state is basically refusing to adhere to what they are supposed to be doing? guest: well, a couple of things. most states have something resembling what is called a

taxpayer advocate where there is an external group outside the government, outside the department of revenue where you can ask for help in clarifying things. two other points -- one, you have identified a really interesting question in tax fairness. do you tax pensions or capital gains? we think a straightforward approach for tax reform is taxing all forms of income, no matter what they are and then putting in place mechanisms that low income families don't have to pay tax on the income. the last thing is just, it's important to remember that administrators like the irs are

facing a situation where they are being asked to do more with less. they are being asked to administer tax codes fairly and effectively and half the time their budgets are being cut in a way that makes it harder for them to be responsive. host: if you go to irs.gov, they have a list of states with taxpayer advocates. you may want to use that as a recourse. keep in florida. . -- keith in florida. republican line. caller: the first caller, look at the problems she is having. michigan might not even have the money to send back to her because of detroit. i believe the government has no right at all to know what your income is unless you were asking for help from the government. i believe the tax should be a

retail final sales tax on new and used products. with one exemption of health care. taxes should be sent up to washington instead of begging for it to come back. it and they would have a retail sales tax, collect the money and keep their share and send it back to the feds. we would not have to beg for this money to come back. if you do a sales tax, it would be one of the most progressive taxes there are because the more money you make, the more money you are likely to spend. at the end, at death, there should be beaten percent tax on -- be a 10% tax on your estate. if you have a 10% sales tax there would be a 10% tax on

income, flat tax, collected through the sales. guest: it's a really interesting topic. there have been a couple of states with proposals that would seriously have entertained the idea of replacing all income taxes, personal and corporate with a much bigger sales tax. when these things are proposed, they are almost always sensibly proposed in combination with some kind of low income rebate. and where recognizes that when you shift away from income taxes towards sales taxes, the single group hit hardest is absolutely the middle income families and low income families.

they try to have some kind of rebate. administering a credit like this , you need to know people's income and have an administration, something like the irs to administer that. there is no magic cure, no magic way of getting rid of tax administration. if you did move towards the universal sales tax at the state or federal level, the impact of tax fairness that no americans would view as fair. host: lynn in pennsylvania. caller: i was just taking exception to the 10 worst list. i live in pennsylvania. as far as i know people in low income levels get 100% of their taxes back.

the state tax and federal tax. they often get more than they paid in. i don't understand how you say that low income are penalized more than others. guest: the short answer to that is that, first, there is a sense in which you are correct that the state income tax in pennsylvania has a tax forgiveness credit. if you are below the poverty line, you should not have to pay the full state income tax and you get a partial or complete rebate. at the same time, the income taxes only one of these three main types of revenue that states rely on. sales taxes are a much bigger piece of the pie. property taxes are a much bigger piece of the pie for pennsylvania as well. these two taxes fall much more heavily on low income families.

there is no one at the cash register asking you whether you are below the poverty line or not. dollar by dollar, you are paying a sales tax on everything you buy and that adds up a lot faster for low income families. host: catherine from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. if the rich pay no taxes corporate america pays no taxes companies pay no taxes, those who buy bonds pay no taxes those people who make money by selling money paid out taxes the tax burden is put upon the working people. the middle class people, the people buying a home, the people who pay all the taxes. you can ask somebody of authority, are you willing to allow us to use a deduction like our home, a single home? they always say we have to look at that because they want to take that away. they don't want to take away any

deductions for the super rich but the poor, that is another issue. my issue is, i'm tired of footing the bill. i want everybody -- i don't care if you make your money by selling money on stock market or if you trade i don't care what you do, if you are a proud american, i want you to pay taxes. i want you to pay fair taxes. if you make $1 million, i want you to pay taxes on $1 million. if you work at a fast food and you make $8,000, pay your a thousand dollars. if you have children, you get deductions. i want everybody to pay. guest: the caller raises a number of very good points. one is that if you look at polling data, i don't think people are -- the thing they are

mounted about is not the amount of taxes they pay right now. they are mad about the correct perception that individuals and businesses who make a lot more money than they do are not paying their fair share. that is true. while there are plenty of businesses back something close to their actual tax rate, there are many more finding ways to pay nothing and that is what infuriates people. i think a very straightforward thing to ask, if you are a state lawmaker, number of the public thinking about how we can get out of budget jams right now, who's going to pay more? the starting point ought to be making sure the best off, large corporations are paying their fair share. host: steve in minnesota. go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span.

whenever i get into a discussion about tax reform, republicans always say the rich should pay less and the democrats always a the rich should pay more -- save the rich should pay more. i would like to challenge people to tell me, how much more do you think is fair? your organization is about tax fairness. in a progressive system, looking at the rate of tax the poor papers the rich, what do you think a fair ratio is? should the rich pay five times more than the poor? i would like to get specific with that question. i will listen off the line. guest: the first thing i would say is that, as a resident of d.c. i am unqualified to specify what the level of tax fairness ought to be in any other state. having said that, fairness is in

the eye of the beholder. a lot of people think some degree of progressivity is a good idea. minimally, all americans would agree that at least you want to have a proportional tax system. almost every state has a long way to go before they can achieve that. as a product of state tax reform, some state got closer to proportionality, that is a starting point every american can agree on. host: the district of columbia falling onto the list of least regressive tax systems. what makes up those characteristics? guest: there are a couple of traits. number one on that list is they have a progressive income tax. another element is that most of these states have tax credits.

the earned income tax credit does not cost a lot of money and rewards work by giving people a match for every dollar they earn it low income levels. 25 states now have these including the least regressive states. these estates generally don't rely heavily on sales taxes. host: gary in new jersey. independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you, pedro. my question is corruption -- i will ask the guest, how do the average person, whether poor or middle class dismember this corrupt system we have with this government? that is really the problem. i was born and raised in new jersey. our state is completely, completely corrupt.

you have a middle and high income people on the jersey shore and for the rest of the state, it is in chaos. camden, patterson, newark, trenton -- trenton is giving 400 homes away because nobody is paying taxes on it and they want people to take the house and live in it. we have no consumer advocate for tax credits. this corrupt system in d.c. is completely out of control and if we don't get a handle on this, we will have nonviolent revolution in this country. the politicians understand this. how do we get a consumer advocate, a real consumer advocate before this whole country collapses? thank you. guest: these are some good points. it is often said that we have

the best tax system money can buy. that is to some extent true. there is a reason for that. the development -- if you look at the development of tax law right now, the groups that have the most voice, the groups that seem to be swaying public opinion are the ones spending the most money lobbying, business representatives, the best off americans. i think lawmakers at the state level do understand fairness issues. when these issues are brought to them, they respond. the fact that we have 25 states with an earned income tax credit now the fact that d.c. has an earned income tax credit that is better than what the federal government does, you can see states leading the way on tax fairness efforts. when they think there is a constituency for fairness and

when they think the average taxpayer really has a handle on these things. the way you counteract this tendency towards unfair tax systems is by being a visible force, by being there talking to her lawmaker and saying you don't think this is fair. host: cleveland, ohio. democrats line. caller: i'm calling in in regards to the affordable care act. the tax system in regards to people with incurable chronic diseases. through the affordable care act i was quoted a price of $17 through the kaiser foundation and ended up having to pay $651 a month when i'm on social security disability. i tried to bring this to our

senator's attention. i wrote the president. i did everything i could. i just don't get it. the affordable care act was supposed to help people in my situation. i was employed at a major corporation for 32 years. i saw how they treated the government out of millions of dollars every year. i did their inventory. they told me what to do. when i brought this to the irs's attention, they did not care. they cared more about the fact that i could not pay my insurance because i had to have money to live. and now, even though i'm on disability, i have no in other income and i have a chronic

disease, it takes every penny you have. guest: the affordable care act is a federal issue in terms of health care and the tax system. it is important -- i can speak to the tax side. the important thing to know about the aca from a tax perspective is it is the single biggest fairness gain you can identify a for the past decade. -- over the past decade. includes substantial tax credits, premium credits for those living near or above the poverty line. when it is fully implemented there are going to be real gains in controlling the cost of health care for middle and low-income families. host: from orange park, florida. the public line.

david, good morning. -- republican line. caller: is there any legal recourse for over taxation by cities and states? is it an individual lawsuit? you have some local governments out of control with corruption. huge pensions that are unwarranted -- i'm a migraine. in some states come elderly people are being tax out of their homes. -- i'm a migrant. you have people in their 50's collecting six-figure pensions. there's something not legal about that. guest: a lot of what you're talking about has to do with the property tax.

it's something you here as a complaint and want to be concerned about in a number of states. i mentioned california's proposition 13. if you ask policymakers or the public what they were mad about in 1978 with proposition 13 that was exactly it. all too often, policymakers reach for the wrong tool. they try to repeal the property tax outright, try to cut it superlow. there are very sensible policy mechanisms a lot of states have no implemented that a lot more states could use to prevent situations where is he or citizen who still has a home worth a lot but are not earning a lot of income anymore -- it is called the circuit breaker property tax credit. if you earn less than a certain

amount in your property taxes exceeded 2% of your income, the state will give you a credit that cap it at that amount. it is any property tax on your behalf that exceeds that 2-3% of your income. host: a report that our guest references come also includes the property tax system and the 10 most regressive states. as we look at that, north carolina, david is up next. independent line. caller: i have one comment. the first caller from florida about sales tax being on the retail and come a lot of big trucks carried up -- it needs to

be on raw goods as well. workmen's comp. -- could that work? what could we do on a sales tax basis to give us a retirement plan that is a flat plan? guest: your first point is pretty interesting. when you are dealing with issues of road wear and tear, what is the right way to pay for that? i think you are correct that the sales tax is not the right way to go. the way states have tried to pay for transportation is a combination of aid from the federal government and having a sustainable gas tax of their own. both of those areas are drying up now.

many states are neglecting allowing their gas tax to get lower earlier. it's important to understand that when you think about what makes an economic climate is a good economic climate in a state it's not just taxes. about what you buy with taxes. the reason the roads and bridges are crumbling is because you have this misguided view that if you hike the gas tax and other taxes, you will hurt the state's economy. that is backwards. if you allow your infrastructure to decay to the point where trucks and cars can deliver things from one place to another , if you have a situation where you are education system is cranking out graduates who are not well trained enough to become an effective part of the workforce, that deals a real

body blows your economic climate. you have to think about taxes as playing a positive role. host: matt gardner with the institute on taxation and economic policy. if you want to find out more about this for report, where can they find it? guest: on our website. host: thank you. tamara's program, we will look at the security of the u.s. power grid, especially against cyber attacks. steve riley from usa today will take that topic on. also on the program, we will consider the wounded warrior project. that will be at 8:30 more morning. -- tomorrow morning. we look at what's going on in yemen.

another look at it with charles schmitz. you can find out more about these segments at www.c-span.org . we will see you then. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ ♪ >> this morning here on c-span, a look at the future of the u.s. postal service postal service. then a hearing on the tsa pre-check screening program. later, a hearing on commercial drones. >> this sunday on "q and a" erik

larson on his new book "dead wake." erik.: the question gets complicated when the question arises, what actually happened to the ship. why was it able to enter without the detailed morning that could have been provided? this has led to some interesting speculation as to whether the ship was set up for attacked by someone in the admiralty. it's interesting. i find no smoking memo, and believe me, i would have. there was nothing from churchill to jackie fisher, or someone else, that said, let the ship go into the irish sea. nothing like that.