later, free market economies and pop-culture. you can join the conversation on facebook or other. host: independent senator bernie sanders will hold a rally for his democratic nomination for president. you can see that life on c-span. republicans rick santorum and george pataki plan announcements this week as well as martin o'malley this saturday. there are reports this morning of iraqi forces launching a major counterattack against isis in ramadi.

defense secretary ash carter laid the takeover blame securely on iraqi forces saying they had no will to fight. it will not only talk about the statement made but will also ask you in the first 45 minutes to talk about iraq and what the u.s. should be doing their whether they need more u.s. forces, doing the same or less. you might have a lot of opinions and you can give us your thoughts. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. join the conversation on facebook. send us an e-mail. "the washington post" picked up the statements of ash carter

talking about ramadi and the state of iraqi security forces. for the full interview, here is a bit of it. [video clip] >> the iraqi forces showed no will to fight. they were not outnumbered. they vastly outnumbered the opposing forced and yet they failed to fight. they withdrew from the site. that says to me and most of us that we have on young issue -- an issue with the will of iraqis to fight isil and defend themselves. we can given training and equipment but cannot give them the will to fight. if we give them equipment training, support and some time, i hope they will develop the

will to fight. only if they fight can isil remain defeated. >> a lot of people in washington that you deal with are saying, put in ground troops and forward air controllers and airstrikes, are not working. what is your view of this? >> they are effective but nothing they or we do can substitute for the iraqi forces will to fight. they are the ones who have to beat isil. host: those are the statements about iraqi forces. if you want to comment on any of those things, here of the numbers. when it comes to the statements saying they have no will to fight, (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans and for independents (202) 748-8002. this as the guardian newspaper announces this morning that in iraq there is a counterattack being launched against isis near ramadi. the launch of the military operation to drive isis out of the and bar robbins -- anbar province, the military operation would be to drive them and backed by shia and sunni paramilitary forces but did not provide whether details. ahmad all a saudi told reporters that the new weapon -- ahmaad,

al-asadi, told reporters that the new weapon -- first and foremost, what did you think about the statement? caller: the secretary of defense is correct saying they did not have the will to fight. but i want to emphasize that isis is a product of the late dictator saddam hussein. [inaudible] it is a sunni radical islamic killing machine that is decapitating their involvement in syria and iraq and they want a caliphate. but iran is more dangerous. hegemony both iraq -- of iraq syria and lebanon.

the saints made the mistake of reducing forces in 2011. civil war in spain led to world war ii. we're coming to world war iii. obama needs to reach strategize. pinpricks will not do the trick. host: does that mean more ground troops in your mind? caller: we cannot use diplomacy. america has advanced military power. use it. it makes sense that america doesn't have the will. they have all this military firepower, crush this second rate isis. if he is sitting or just talking diplomacy but we will talk ourselves into a thermonuclear cataclysm. host: daniel, go ahead on our independent line. caller: i appreciate you taking the time to hear this call.

the gentleman before me maybe determined that anyone from washington can stop the average sociologist approach in trying to determine what is best. i think ground troops are a bad idea. the word is that airstrikes are working and there are several other options available. diplomacy works. washington will have to realize that in time they'll have to listen to the american people. we have proven time and again that the war we went into twice was off of faulty evidence and i really think in the idea of a sociologist approach, this idea of isis being disgruntled on the idea of united states occupancy and other things are vindicated reasons to want to continue to escalate violence. unfortunately, the united states

has the back away. this will be the one time that the sociologist approach is going to work. host: jim is in baltimore md. talking about iraqi forces recently in ramadi. caller: yes, one of the things i cannot understand, a comment was made about the soldiers running out of ramadi that were fighting isis. one of the issues was that they were not eating paid. since they are not being paid where is all the money going that we are sending this country? we are sending them billions of dollars per year and in the soldiers cannot get paid. host: before you go. is there a connection between

not getting paid and the effectiveness on the battlefield? caller: according to the statement made yesterday because they are not getting paid is one of the reasons that they were running away. i thought they had strong leadership but i can imagine the higher-ups are getting paid. why aren't they getting paid. sending millions of dollars over there to support them including weapons. host: next on the independent line. caller: the -- blaming the iraqi army is an easy way out for

americans. we are breaking up this country into different zones. kurdish zones, this and that. now we blame the military. why should the military fight for politicians who have no vision. we failed, we went there and lost many lives and trillions of dollars so now we start bringing thousand -- blaming thousands of the army who have nothing to do with it. what should they die for? for this sewn or this sector -- zone or this sector? we destroyed one big country called iraq. we are to be blamed for that, not the iraqi army? host: the topic of the defense secretary's statements.

you talk about that or the strategy overall. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. taking a look at military tactics. new weapons, tactical sophistication and prowess. the group displayed a high degree of operational security by silencing social media propaganda teams and churned out dozens of formidable new weapons by converting captured u.s. military armored vehicles designed to be impervious to small arms fire into mega bombs with payloads equal to the force of the oklahoma city bombing. eric is from antioch california. caller: i would like to say to

everyone to be patient. i believe his comments were as much for isis as everybody else. it might just be that they wanted them in ramadi. they have to be beaten by the iraqis. if we are the ones responsible for losing then it will just get more recruits. with the iraqis on their own they can hold their own country. everybody be patient and give things a chance. host: when you say we wanted them in ramadi, what do you mean by that? caller: to sucker them in. isis will think all we have to do is attack and these guys will break. that might be what they want them to do. they cannot allow isis to slip away.

a lot of times in the middle east when a battle is not the one you put in your weapons down and disappear, but they cannot allow that to happen. host: you spoke about patients, what is your confidence level in iraqi security forces? caller: i like everybody else, i do believe from the things i saw there was no direct fleeing of the iraqi forces. they just withdrew. they have already regained 25% of the territory lost previously. i think everybody needs to be a little patience. host: branson, missouri up next don on the republican line. caller: probably my geography is not very good. it seems to me that the only people willing to fight are the

kurds and the peshmerga and we are supplying money to iraqis. i hope somebody out there knows why are we not backing the kurds 100%. host: the statements by the defense secretary cut the year of the iraqi prime minister who talked about what he said in an interview with the bbc. here is the reaction that the bbc got. [video clip] >> i am surprised why he said that. he was very supportive of iraq. i'm sure he was fed the wrong information. >> ramadi was a disaster, wasn't it? >> it makes my heart lead. but i assure you we can bring it back soon. host: that is the prime minister and there is ramadi, a map in

the center of iraq. that is the current counteroffensive taking place there. we are getting your thoughts on that. the vice president ended up calling the iraq prime minister talk about the statements he had heard and to smooth over concerns. the readout from the white house saying the vice president had confirmed the report against isil in the vice president recognize the enormous sacrifice and bravery over the past 18 months in ramadi and elsewhere. the vice president welcome to the council of minister's unanimous decision on may 19 to mobilize additional troops

honor those who a fallen and prepare for counter attack operations. the vice president pledged full u.s. support in these and other iraqi efforts to liberate territory from isil. rick, you are next. caller: what is amazing about this conversation is the iraq war -- am i on the air? host: go ahead. caller: the iraq war was based on lies and brainwashing. you go back and the reality is -- for me to speak about this, you have to give me my freedom of speech. the reality is, this is the self . -- south. the south in this country relies on oil and war, that is there economy. then you talk about the brainwashing.

the media is controlled through the state of texas with clear channel radio 1350 radio stations. then you have georgia which was time warner which was just bought by the company that used to own nbc and that is new york state and connecticut. that is wall street and the banking system and then the jews. freedom of speech here. if the last five wars were started by texans, the vietnam war and gulf war's and both afghanistan wars and if the largest military ace in the world is in texas and the largest military contractor and oil companies are in texas, then how come the conversation -- i am in ohio. texas steals money from michigan ohio, illinois and

pennsylvania. host: ok, tom. final thought. what should be done now? caller: we need to have -- take back our media so we can speak the truth. host: tom is from knoxville tennessee, independent line. hello. caller: the secretary of defense probably has a lot more defense than me or the average person on the street, but i listen to news feeds all weekend from all over the world and a lot of the tribal leaders in that province are saying we don't have the weapons, we didn't have the weapons. a lot of people are saying that security forces ran out of ammunition. to me it seems more in line with

what has been going on the last eight years in iraq. the shiite government putting much just disowned the sunnis. they don't want to arm them because then they would have to listen to what they have to say. as far as breaking iraq, all we did was take the lid off the pot. it is a pot that has been boiling for 300 years. are we responsible for taking the lid off? yes. are we responsible for how they behave? i don't think we are. we spent a lot on equipment and lives and shattered lives to give them a shot to work it out to work together and they have not. that is not something we can force them to do. host: that is tom and tennessee your thoughts on iraqi security

forces. the defense secretary said they had no will to fight. you may have thoughts on that or anything else. host: a crowded field as far as those on the republican side that field will be joined by others in here to help us go through what is going on is robert costa of "the washington post" how are you? are you there? we will go back to him as soon as we can but back to your calls. john in new york, go ahead. john in new york, are you there? i don't know if we have john on

the line, but again if you want to give us a call (202) 748-8000 hour line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independants. you can speak to us on facebook, twitter or send us an e-mail. here taking look at cleveland and the deal they reached with the justice department. the front page of "the post" saying the city has reached a settlement but the latest case in which the obama administration has investigated excessive use of force and the violation of constitutional rights by a local department. the justice department issued a scathing report that accuse them of illegally using excessive

force against citizens. the civil rights decision found the engage in a pattern of unnecessary force including shooting resident, striking them in the head and spraying them with chemicals. in one incident an officer used a stun gun on a suicidal, and deaf man who committed no crime, posed minimal risk to officers and may not have understood commands. also in "washington post," robert costa covers political events. tell us about what to expect in the next couple of weeks. caller: we will see a lot more people get into the presidential race. with the new filing. starting in june you will see a whole crowd of people jump in. on the democrat side, bernie sanders of vermont get into the

race and on the republican side, rick santorum. and then in the summer the debates start and that will be a competition in a large field to get momentum and buzz. host: george pataki showing interest in this? caller: he has been off the stage for quite some time but i was with governor pataki in new hampshire a couple weeks ago and he is making a dogged effort. he doesn't have much momentum. people seem to have forgotten him. but he served multiple terms in new york and leaves he can offer a record of experience. it will be a difficult task for him because he doesn't really have the money that you need to compete. host: you talked about the debate. some television stations are planning who to invite to the debate, give us a sense of what the strategy will be.

caller: it will be fascinating to watch how this all unfolds. the republican national committee has tried to have more control over the process this time. the rnc is not taking the lead role in dictating who can be at the debate. instead it is the networks making these decisions. they are going to have 10 people on stage. 10 candidates. you will have to be declared and in the top 10 of pulling according to the last five national polls. cnn hosts the ensuing debate. they will have two tiers. there is not really a process that is uniform. it will be based on the network

's own decisions. a lot of these candidates who are perhaps not going to make it will be frustrated. caller:host: they include a number of polls about who is running where. robert costa, look into the future a little bit into the primary process. does this envision a long primary process and does the gop want that? caller: it sounds almost fanciful to say it but because the field has more than a dozen contenders this could go all the way to the convention. this is something that top republican officials have relayed to me privately. it is a thought not seen as something that could happen absolutely but is definitely a possibility. because the process has been elongated, they will have all of these debates and the primary itself will have a lot of contest together early next

year. because of the super pac and the way a lot of candidates can get an angel benefactor and survive for a long time the weight newt gingrich did and rick santorum in 2012, you could even though you are not winning primaries stay in the race. the media coverage that a strong debate performance provides is fuel. this could go long and could be a long contest. caller: you mentioned bernie sanders, tell us about what to expect in burlington vermont. caller: this is a self-described socialist and proudly so. a true progressive. someone who will be a competition and threat for hillary clinton. the former secretary of state is wildly popular but she has some skeptics as well. people who wanted elizabeth warren to run. bernie sanders is the next best choice.

look for him and iowa to try to connect to the grassroots and the progressives and liberal voters who are antiwar and anti-big bang. in new hampshire, neighboring vermont, he could be someone who could put up significant support. we will see if he will be more than a fringe candidate and i think he will be as at this moment he is the only real alternative to hillary clinton. host: you called him a threat? you think that? caller: not in terms of winning iowa or new hampshire at this point but think to 2004. howard dean with his momentum and message and a lot of young people who supported him was able to become a threat to john kerry. iowa has in the past gone to far left candidates. if he can get 35% in iowa and

then go to the hampshire, he can provide a problem for clinton. not for the nomination but he could easily pull her to the left and become a threat eventually. host: robert costa who reports on these things for "the washington post," thank you for your time. iraqi forces and the pullback strategy. that is the topic for the remainder of our time. for independents (202) 748-8002. if you want to join in the conversation pick the line that best represents you. it was a few days ago in the los angeles times that the columnist writes about the iraqi strategy overall. you hear some of his thoughts on what the u.s. should be doing saying a large portion of the blame clearly does belong in

baghdad, especially the shiite factions, but plenty of pro-american iraqis and americans who have spent time in the country believe that the obama admits ration could do more without putting u.s. troops on the ground. america can help. said the former deputy prime minister, he called on obama administration to set up joint committees and sunni provinces to get aid and weapons flowing. direct financing from the american side encourage people to defeat al qaeda in 2006 and 2007. he said there hasn't been enough political engagement. where are the visits to iraq by the secretary of state and the secretary of defense. where are the phone calls from the president? it is not happening. patrick on the independent line. caller: good morning.

isis is fighting an unconventional war. iraq has a totally confused and incapable army. they are trying to fight them conventionally and that is a big mistake. another issue, saudi arabia are going into yemen full force. why are they doing that with iraq and isis? why aren't their boots on the ground? host: that is patrick calling with his thoughts, from lewis in louisiana. caller: good morning. i have a concern, since they say we are in debt to just about everybody, my concern is we

should cut back on how much money we are giving to foreign countries, especially countries we are trying to help and all the are doing is trying to get as much as they can from us. i think we could use that money in education infrastructure and stuff like that. host: so in iraq, what should be done. caller: in iraq, our president is trying to do the right thing. he is not selling our young people's blood or life's. he doesn't want to sell that. i think he has the right road in that. the powers that be that want to make money on the lives and blood of our young people are the ones who bring and hollering

-- whooping and hollering for war. our president needs to say our young people's lives are not for sale. echoing concerns of secretary ashton carter who said the iraqi troops have shows and not the will to fight. many men and women have expressed frustration over their ability to defend the nation and burying views on how u.s. engagement is the right way forward there you -- forward. we gave up a lot to be there and the problem right now is that at the end of the day the iraqis need to do it themselves. we have done so much for them and if they don't stand up and do it them selves it is not going to happen. after leaving the army as a

staff sergeant in 2011, mr. madden earned his college degree and got a job at rally point and that is part of the coverage you can see. if you would go to the front page of "the washington times" this morning some of the photos that were featured from the memorial day coverage, a photo on the fun -- front pages there of an event that took place at arlington national cemetery. if you want to give us a call and not only give your thoughts on statements made by the defense secretary but also what you think should be done in iraq

and if there is more we could do or less. if you give us a call, pick the line that best represents you. let's go to maria from connecticut. thank you for calling. caller: i am just calling because my concern is this. because of the fact that we have become involved with iraq and now with isis growing bigger every day and the atrocities involved with isis, i believe that regardless of whether we pull out now, it does not matter. i think we're pretty much f'd up with what has happened. [indiscernible]

isis is the devil on earth. what they are doing to little children, beheadings and so forth, it is awful. we have our guys over there. get them out and get them home and we had better hunker down because i think we are in for a long-term -- on our own blade -- land, call me negative but i am petrified at this point. host: do you think efforts need to be made to expand the efforts of iraqi security forces? caller: not at all. total opposite. why are we putting our young lives out there. it is getting bigger and worse day by day. we need to get our guys back home and hunker down. by that i mean taking our own safety measures and being

proactive so we can perhaps bear arms. is that the right thing at this point? maybe it is. host: frederick, go ahead. caller: my name is frederick and i am from virginia. i want to ask my congressman a question. i want to know any of them willing to send their own sons and daughters over there. the shiites [inaudible] -- [inaudible] when it comes to the sunnis they don't want to defend it. i want to know why you can't [indiscernible] if he wants to send his son or daughter, we are not going to spill blood anymore. entitlement. host: the previous caller had

said as far as pulling out of the u.s. completely and concentrating efforts on defending things here at home, would you agree with that? caller: [indiscernible] we need to help ourselves instead of helping other nations. host: gordon from clinton maryland on the democrat line talking about the iraq forces. go ahead. caller: as far as iraqi forces having no will to fight, i don't blame them whatsoever. we came over and bombed their country and dismantle their government and now we are pointing the finger at them. we call the people who fight over there terrorists.

as far as isis, there is a lot of fear being pumped into america via the news media about isis. the only thing different about isis is a televised their killings. there has been ethnic cleansing and mass murders going on in war for years. rwanda bosnia and all of that nobody has been pumping fear about that. nobody cares too much. isis is no different than any other warring faction, they just televise their killings. host: do you think isis is a threat? caller: they are a threat to the people over there, not to the united states anymore than anybody else. the united states government needs to put more emphasis on protecting our borders. all these news media outlets keep acting like we are in such

danger but when was the last time something attacked us? it has been at least 14 years. host: from greensboro, north carolina am a you are up next. caller: i agree with what ash carter said. if they don't want to fight, we don't need to be over there. if john mccain and lindsey graham and all of them want to send more ground troops, we have boots for them. host: when you hear some people say they are a threat, do you believe that? caller: no. host: why not? caller: i just don't. host: joe is up next. independent line. caller: i was over in iraq in 2004 and 2005. i did 22 hours -- to tours. my son is over there now and has

trained twice to go to afghanistan and is ready to come home in july. i don't want him going over there anyway and i just want to state that i don't think we have a say over there. the people of iraq have to take care of their own country. host: did ramadi show they have the ability to do so? caller: well, i think they have the ability, they just don't have the will. the reason is they are not getting paid either government or whatever and if the government would step up and do the right thing are think they would do the right thing. this sunni shiite thing is a bad war over there and it will be forever. when we took out saddam, it was a big mistake. host: what did you do in iraq?

caller: i was in it scout unit. host: you talked about the will of the iraqis to fight. talking about money. what else to you think the u.s. could do to improve their desire to stand up for their country? caller: i think the u.s. should get the hell out and let them stand up for their own country. we can offer support financially, maybe some air support but they should take care of their own, that is what i think. i think we spent enough blood over there. maybe put in some special forces and let them take care of these isis characters. we do not need any ground support. or in afghanistan either. we should just hold the hell out

and let them take care of their own business. it will happen eventually anyway. if we come over here then we will take care of them. host: that is joe in south carolina. alan from philadelphia is up next. caller: i just wanted to say, in reference to our ground troops being over there, those iraqi soldiers not wanting to fight this is a much bigger picture. with iraq not paying their soldiers, not only do they not want to fight, but there is more to this picture in reference to money being shifted around between iran and iraq and between shiites and between our country. it is a lot of money being made in this country for isis over

there being shifted their money being made in iraq and ship to yemen and a lot of people don't understand that. it is a shame that this money is not getting traced to be stopped. to not worry about whether we have troops over there -- the whole thing about this war is to destroy israel. we have to protect israel and protect our values toward israel. if we are do that this whole fighting is for nothing. host: aside from the money you think there is a way to improve how they fight? caller: i think it is better to put -- what you call the diplomatic forces they go train iraqis? host: some are military, there is a diplomacy corps. caller: if you train them and they don't want to accept, we

have to figure out another way to stop all training -- we do have to concentrate on this country, there are a lot of businesses over here. the foreigners who come over here and learn a trade and learn our system, then they infiltrate our business systems to send back money to fund those particular items. the troops don't matter. the training stops and starts when you infiltrate where the money trail ends or begins. host: we will hear from frederick and orange virginia. >> i have been watching a lot of

cnn, i recently saw frederick kagan and he suggested -- host: are you there? frederick, are you there? go ahead, you are on. caller: he suggested that to have a will to fight it is so independent on actual successes itself. isis takes a city. host: are you saying if they saw more success that would build their confidence? they would have more success? caller: that too. there is a lot of feelings that we don't what to send troops over there. even in iraq there is not

necessarily a lot of will. host: we got you frederick. in orange, virginia. that is the last call we will take on that topic. we will change gears to look at the supreme court. they're expected to hand down opinions even today. there are other cases on the court's docket looking at free speech redistricting and lethal injection. those could come down at any time and walk through what is left for this court. kimberly robinson will be here to talk about what is left. the guest leader on the program says it is easier to understand economics when you think in terms of basketball, television and even rock 'n roll. john tammany, or the author of

popular economics will be a long later. "washington journal" continues after this. >> these sons and daughters, these brothers and sisters who lay down their lives for us they are our children, too. we benefit from their lives their positive influence on the world, it is our duty and internal obligation to be there for them. to make sure our troops have what they need. to make shortly care for all those who have served. to make sure we honor all of

those who we have lost. to make sure we keep race. -- base with military families. we are grateful for families and uw's and mia's. this may be the first memorial day since the end of the war in afghanistan that we are acutely aware that our men in uniform still stand watch and still serve and sacrifice around the world. several years ago we had more than 100,000 troops in afghanistan. today fewer than 10,000 troops remain. we will continue to bring them home and reduce our forces further down by the end of next year but afghanistan remains a dangerous place. as somebody families know our troops continue to risk their

lives for us. host: that is president obama from a memorial day observance ceremony yesterday. you can see the full presentation on our website c-span.org. that is what you will see on the front page and you can see his full statements on the website. joining us now, camberley robinson of bloomberg -- kimberly robinson of bloomberg. on the days remaining of the court session, what happens between now and then. just decision-making? what happens? >> no more oral arguments that will be heard this term. the remaining six weeks the judges will still conference about cases they could hear next term. they will be hammering out the opinions they have left. host: as far as cases about same-sex marriage or health care subsidies have those decisions

been made? guest: the justices are likely still working on the exact wording of those opinions and some might still be deciding what they are going to decide. host: let's go through some of the big ones. over fell versus hodges and others, dealing with same-sex marriage what do the judges have the question and tell us about the back and forth going into it and what the sense of the justices were. guest: the issues in the case are two questions but the main question is about whether or not states kanban same-sex couples -- can ban same-sex couples from getting married. this is an issue that millions of americans have voted one. the states say that nine elected judges of the supreme court should not touch these laws that the majority think.

on the flipside, opponents say the constitution protects minorities, no matter how badly the majority might want them. host: the tug-of-war between the justices themselves comes down to two, anthony kennedy and justice scalia. guest: i would also say another potential? is chief justice roberts. we already kind of know how they are going to vote from their decision a couple of terms ago. justice kennedy seems to be the big? . in general arguments he had questions on both sides of the issue. host: can you tell us what windsor was about? guest: in 2000 10 it struck down the defense of marriage act. the supreme court said the federal government cannot do that. the supreme court in this case is whether or not the states can

do it. host: the windsor cases on must a tell in the current argument. guest: that is correct. host: justice kennedy, and always comes down to him. where does he stand on same-sex issues and states issues? are those things an agreement for him personally? guest: in this case these two issues are in conflict. justice kennedy has written three of the major gay-rights decisions and many expect he will continue that legacy in the same-sex marriage cases. he is also very concerned about the relationship tween the federal government and the state. in windsor he wrote how the federal law has really trampled on the states rights. that means justice kennedy could go the other way in this case. host: if you want to ask our guest questions, we are talking about the issues still before the courts.

(202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independence. kimberly roberts from bloomberg joining us for today. taking a look at health care. we will look at this headline. painting the picture of what the case is concerning before the court. guest: it isn't actually a challenge to the affordable care act but it takes aim at one of the major premises which is making health care affordable. the issue is up to -- subsidies for up to 8 million americans. the federal law says that subsidies are available to people who purchase their incomes on these health care exchanges. president obama has likened these two amazon.com for health insurance.

the issue is whether they are available for people who purchase them on federally run exchanges and state run exchanges which is much fewer people who purchased on the federal exchange. host: taking a look at what happens to prices and individuals if subsidies go away. does the court consider those factors socially or do they specifically look at legal ramifications? guest: we know that the justices are aware of this. they have written about these death spirals whenever it you take these subsidies away. it is controversial whether the justices should consider it. justice scalia said it really doesn't matter whether or not the law will create havoc. it is just his job to interpret what the law actually says. he cannot make up his own law, that is for congress. guest: if -- host: if justice scalia says

that i'm sure there were pushed back from the others. guest: they say if we look at the slot as a whole it does say what the government says that these are available to purchase from federal exchanges and you cannot just look at a single sentence. you have to look at the law as a whole and it was meant to make insurance affordable for all individuals. host: cases facing the supreme court. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. how often do decisions get released by the court? guest: it doesn't mean we will get opinions today but as they get closer to the end of the term in june we will start to get the more frequently, possibly every day except friday. host: what is the likelihood we hear about the major cases? guest: very unlikely. they typically the last day of

the term or the last week of june. host: how many cases do the here and a session? guest: they heard less than 70 this term so we are expecting about 28 more decisions this term. quite a bit of work. host: talking about a lot of different things and a lot of different topics and if you wouldn't mind painting the picture of the cases involved in some of the things that happened in deliberation. this one deals with lethal injection. guest: this is a challenge to the oklahoma three drug cocktail. this drug cocktail came to light after oklahoma's botched execution last spring. it came too late for the former leads point if. the supreme court -- plaintiff. the supreme court refused to hear it until the week after he was executed. but the case does not involve a

challenge to the death penalty itself, it is just about these specific drugs. the history of the opposition to death penalty was very much on the minds of some of the justices. justice kennedy, scalia and alito have said death penalty opponents were kind of boxing the state in by urging manufacturers not to make certain drugs available. justice alito accused the drug penalty opponents of engaging in a guerrilla war against the death penalty. host: our first call. clinton -- quentin from alabama. caller: the question is, could you highlight a little bit about the justice's views. i remember hearing about love being the foundation of marriage. there was discrimination and it

came to love -- if someone loves some they should be able to marry them. can you give me some of the arguments of the various justices on that? if iran were correctly, if there was -- if i remember correctly they could marry one people, two people, three people come a doug's, cats -- people, dogs, cats. could you give their opinions on that? guest: one of the issues is the purpose of marriage. the states argue it is not about love or commitment between adults but rather it is about trying to encourage adults to raise their biological children. some of the justices expressed a concern that this idea has been ingrained in marriage, justice

kennedy put it, millennia plus time. he wondered about the wisdom of changing that definition or requiring states to change that definition. host: ralph is up next. caller: could the young lady please explain how this affordable care act got to the supreme court? guest: the individuals here are available for subsidies. they are challenging the requirement that with the subsidies they are now required to purchase health care. they say without the subsidies they would be exempt from the law. guest: the subsidies themselves depend on language in the original law. guest: it is not technically a challenge to the law but a challenge to the irs regulation interpreting the law.

host: bill king ways in on twitter saying after united citizens and hobby lobby can we trust them with marriage equality and the death penalty? this concept that they see themselves as decision-makers, is that effective at all as they are weighing these decisions? guest: they are ready talked about how justice scalia views outside pressures on the court. chief justice roberts had strong opinions about how he wants the court to be seen. that plays in different ways. host: does that factor in the decision he made about the affordable care act law itself? guest: that is something that they have speculated about.

caller: i just wanted to call in and give my two cents. i am a gay man in california. i feel that the situation regarding what marriage is, i think the supreme court should be making a decision, not the states. there are so many states like down south, there are so many people including politicians that are very selfish and cannot see out of the box. they don't care about free rights for everyone. it impacts everybody.

i can't even move back east down south and have a good life and get married because of the attitude of the people down there. why should they be able to make decisions? there are a lot of gay people i'm sure and minorities that are just miserable and their lives are uncomfortable because of the way that states -- the states feel and act out. host: thanks. guest: you hit it right on the head. that is the court's debate. does the majority get to decide this issue or is it something that the court steps in and interprets the lines. host: this is cedric. hello. caller: this is cedric marx.

i am talking about the issue of gay marriage. i believe that the individual has the right to marry whomever they want. it's freedom of choice. host: should that the estate decision? caller: that should be a state decision. i think the state should have the right to make the decision. host: if that's the case, should the court be weighing in on this at all? do you believe if it's a state decision, so the supreme court weigh in on this at all? caller: i don't think the supreme court should get involved. host: another case to consider, the issue dealing with free speech on social media. guest: this is the case of a

pennsylvania man who was convicted for ranting about killing his wife on facebook. he was talking about massacring a kindergarten class. he was having a bad year. his wife left him and he lost his job. it was not intended to put people into fear, it was therapeutic for him because they were often in the form of rap lyrics or satirical. he said he did not intend to threaten everyone he should not go to jail. the government says that does not matter. what matters is if a reasonable person would think someone would be put in fear. host: how do they wind up with this case in the first place? guest: the defendant says that the constitution protects his rights to post these graphic rap lyrics or citations to satirical

matter. he says this is something that the constitution protects. host: they had to consider the implications of this decision. guest: they were trying to grasp the new technology and how they should view the governments idea of a reasonable person. the government attorney made a joke that is there a reasonable teenager on the internet? host: union washington, r is on theeedeed is on the republican line. guest: i hope the supreme court rules in terms of liberty. there is procreation and there is marriage. children and such, procreation is between a man and a woman. marriage could be anything.

you could want to go fishing with your buddy. that is a civil arrangement. i am for people like rand paul. he is more libertarian it. if our conservative movement needs to get on board. they need to get out of the bedroom. i want to see the supreme court ruled on liberty. guest: that is exactly the issue that the justices have to tackle, if this is something that the states should be in the business of regulating. host: joshua is up next. caller: thank you for taking my call. marriage is between a man and a woman. you can google it and look it up in the dictionary.

to keep it that way, the religious side -- two appease the gay community and make sure they have the same rights as married people as far as tax incentives and seeing their loved ones in the hospital, make sure that they can be included in civil unions so they get what they want and marriage stays between a man and woman. that is just my opinion. host: the you think they should be weighing on this in the first place? guest: just to set the tone for the nation, to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman and states can decide

about civil unions between same-sex couples. guest: i know that the opponents of the same-sex marriage ban have argued that civil unions are not enough. they don't provide the same kinds of social acceptance and providing two separate institutions is a second-class marriage. host: our line for democrats is open. let's hear from nancy. we are talking about cases that are in front of the supreme court. caller: i just want to say what god's says in his bible. we will be judged. god will judge us. it should not be the supreme court, they are not supreme. god is supreme.

same-sex marriage does not produce children. guest: that was something that justice scalia mentioned. he was concerned about forcing a definition on a population where so many people find it to be unpalatable from a religious standpoint. that is on their minds. host: that entered into these the liberations? guest: they are what the protester who interjected -- he was taken out of the courtroom. host: this is william. good morning. caller: how are you doing. my question is this, what do you think about free speech? is it free speech when somebody

if your name appears in a press report 10 years ago and every time somebody googles your name that story is republished over and over and over. it's a negative story. it's something that was not serious, it is something that you don't want people to read. what do you think of that in terms of free speech? every time your name is googled this story gets republished and republished. guest: the right to be forgotten is a new topic right now. it's not something that is before the supreme court. whether or not that has first amendment value and should be protected is something to think about. before, it was the facebook rant.

the justices did not have a concern either way about these rants. they did have certain circumstances that they wanted to statute to capture and they did want the statute to capture and criminalize. that is something that they think about, whether or not specific speech is entitled to protection. host: is at the first time they have heard something concerning free speech and social media? guest: i believe so. it was entertaining to see some of the justices struggling with the new media are talking about the new media. justice alito was talking about one of the comments that the defendant receiving a thumbs-up from somebody. host: does that go to their general awareness of the media itself? i assume they don't use those things. guest: they have public facebook

accounts. maybe they are trolling us all. host: go ahead. caller: i was wondering if the present approval rating of the supreme court is at its lowest ebb ever. it seems it has become totally politicized. before arlen specter left the senate, he was highly critical of the court. we have justice alito saying he was going to uphold past precedent. he has done nothing but upset past precedent. how is the opinion of the court changing under this conservative roberts court? guest: the supreme court has been in the spotlight a lot over the last couple of years with some hotly contested issues. there was some speculation that the court was going to try and stay out of the controversy all

issues. they wanted to stay out of the spotlight, they are not all comfortable there. they denied to hear challenges to several state bans that had been struck down by federal court. because of the decisions came down conflicting with other decisions, they felt compelled to step in, even though they may not one to be in the limelight. host: the recent polling of the supreme court says 48% disapprove and 44% approve. guest: i imagine that will change drastically by the end of this term, depending on how the court comes down on same-sex marriage and the obamacare case. host: how long has chief justice

roberts been chief justice? guest: 10 years. this is a historic term for him as well. he's got these huge issues on his plate. host: what is the opinion of his management of the court? guest: i think most people think he does a great job. during the affordable care act challenge, we did not hear a lot about him except to referee the conversation between the other justices and the attorneys. that was a controversy all issue. he tends to keep the decorum in the courtroom pretty well. host: let's hear from lily in pennsylvania. go ahead. let's try gordon in florida. good morning. go ahead. caller: i was just listening to these people colin on the

libertarians -- colin -- call in about libertarians. there is no absolute freedom. you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. that has already been part of our law. that you can have rules and regulations like marriage by a man and woman is ridiculous. guest: that is the issue that the justices are considering. whether or not this is something that is reserved to each person personally or something the majority of people can weigh in on it. host: henry in boston on the democrats line. caller: there was a previous caller who wanted to know how the supreme court decides to take these cases. the other question i have is the

voter id. is that on the agenda? guest: we normally have opinions from both the district short -- court and an appellate court. they are asked to weigh in on thousands of cases. they only agree to hear about 70 cases each term. it's a very small slice of the issues that are traveling through the court system. to your second question about the voter id laws, they are not, but they could come into question by another law that takes aim at an arizona law that took redistricting out of the hands of the state legislature and put it with an independent redistricting commission. the question is whether the legislature alone can be involved in these laws or if it is the process including the

voter initiatives and things that are done through popular vote. a lot of these voter id laws are done through popular vote. the way the court comes down on the redistricting question could shed some light on how they would view a popularly enacted voter id law. host: is a 5-4 decision expected? guest: a lot of redistricting has to deal with a challenge to the merits of a plan. this is more about process. oral arguments did not really show how they were leaning either way. we just going to have to wait and see. host: linda is up in connecticut. caller: it baffles me that the supreme court has to weigh in on marriage when we have a constitution that says

individual rights. i don't see how we can take individual rights constitutionally. the irs determines people's tax status and then turn around and say to any individual you are not allowed to get married if we call it a closing like we do when we buy a house. i can walk into a church and say i'm married and say i am married but i have to register with city hall. it is an individual right. i don't understand how the supreme court could possibly look at it any other way. it is a government entity approving citizens actions. i don't think the justices that are considering to church can consider the constitution.

i do understand why that line is blurred at all. that's all i have to say. guest: it's interesting when you talk about government recognition. lost in the discussion of the same-sex marriage case is the second question that they considered, whether states can refuse to recognize marriages between same-sex couples that were validly entered into in other jurisdictions. that is also an issue that the supreme court is presumably going to answer, the idea of whether or not states have to recognize other state marriages. host: this is long beach, california. caller: i have a question this morning. i wanted to get her feelings on which way the supreme court will rule, as the executive action

winds through court and the decisions are rendered by the court in texas, will they uphold it or will they override the will of the people like that liberal court in the western district court back when we in california put our money and our time and effort into voting to deny benefits to criminal or illegal aliens in this country? what is your opinion on that? are these judges political or activist judges? guest: the issue of these immigration regulations and rules are something likely to come to the court and something the court is considering right now. one of the court's cases is an

arizona law that denies bail to undocumented citizens who have been charged with some offenses. this issue is in the court. they are considering this for several weeks. it is an issue that the justices have on their plate. host: have they ever weighed in on executive action by a president? guest: i am not sure of that answer. i can say that the push and pull between the executive and congress is a frequent player at the court. they are considering a court case right now between the power struggle between these two branches over what justice kagan called jerusalem. host: mark is in florida on the democrat line. go ahead.

caller: thank you. when truman took over the steel industry, was that an executive action? my question is about politics and the supreme court. i know that we feel they should be on a pedestal and deciding things in the most solomon like manner. these people all have political backgrounds. judge thomas's wife works for causes on one side. should he recuse himself? is that just part of life, the neighborhood he lives in a? to be fair to the other side,

some justices could recuse themselves if they have decided in the marriage ban. all these people go through a political process to get there. they play politics to stay in power. rehnquist denied authorizing an opinion when he was clerking for a judge. we would like to think that they are solomons. they work in neighborhoods where certain opinions prevail. they don't have any experience otherwise. does that do a disservice to the people? guest: you mentioned recusal which has been controversial. there were a number of calls to have justices kagan and ginsburg

recused because they had officiated same-sex marriages. justice ginsburg had done that as recently as this month. the justices don't typically recuse themselves from these kinds of cases. they do have their own political beliefs. that is why we have nine justices decided these cases rather than just one telling us what the right or wrong answer is. host: the story from justice ginsburg's coming out of her recent officiating of a same-sex marriage. guest: i would not say the justice ginsburg is in question. i think she is an easy vote for the opponents of the bands.

host: go ahead, you are on. caller: i don't think the supreme court should be listening to this. they are trying to hijack the law. sentences make paragraphs and paragraphs become multiple paragraphs and a context given to a legislature. it's past as a law. it has to go to a court or a judge to solve a problem. polygamy is not a marriage. these all means something. they are definitely up to something, just like the separation of church and state. guest: deciphering what the

words mean is a lot of what the supreme court does. the issue is how narrowly or broadly they should look. the challenge to the affordable care act is a perfect example where both sides argued that the case is very easy, all you have to do is look at the law. they are looking at different parts of the law and the justices have to decide which sentences they should be looking too. host: danny is up next on the independent line. caller: hello. i would like to talk about something i don't understand about the supreme court. you have so many people looking at 70 cases a day?

you have millions of americans i mean millions of them. these guys are going to die before they are even heard on death row. i can't understand it. guest: they hear about 70 each term. a term goes from october to june. that may be exacerbating the problem that you're talking about. as we mentioned before, the supreme court has to agree to hear lethal injection cases, but it refused to stay the case before they heard it and one person was executed. host: how does the caseload get chosen? guest: thousands of cases are brought to the justices each year. there will be a petition, the

respondents will file a brief and sometimes the government will be asked to weigh in on it. the justices will conference about each case. they will decide whether or not to grant the petition and hear it or deny the petition. the ones that are granted, that is typically what you think of when you think of the supreme court. eventually, there will be a decision we will be talking about on television. host: what is it about a case that is interesting to the court to take it? guest: it's a split between the lower courts. as justice ginsburg has put it, if the lower courts know how to rule on it, there is no reason for the supreme court to rule on it. that is something emblematic of supreme court review. we sought with the same-sex marriage cases.

they refused to hear the issue on the first day of the term. all of the federal appellate courts agreed that states could not ban a same-sex marriage. it wasn't until the sixth circuit said they can do this that the justices decided to step in. host: there were petitions to have cameras installed to televise the proceedings to let people see how it went. what is the thought on the court when it comes to cameras in the courtroom? guest: there seems to be a hesitance. justice scalia has said that he is concerned that it would become more showboating and less about the legal arguments. he talks about the attorneys appearing before them and the justices themselves. justice roberts has pride -- tried to defend the decision by saying their branch is the most

transparent of all three in the government because with each decision, you get a very thorough decision which outlines what they were thinking and which arguments they thought were persuasive. host: today is the decision day. how will people find out what happened and how you go about your day on these days? guest: there will be orders at 9:30 a.m. we may get some grants and some denials. at 10:00, they will issue the opinion. we don't know how many opinions they will issue. we have some clues based on how many boxes are available in the press room. the press is kind of in the dark as well. people can find out about what opinions are announced by going

to the court and listening to the justices. there are a number of press like me that tweet about the cases and all of the decisions are put on the supreme court's website after they announce in court. host: if you are interested in some of the cases that are being decided, we have audio of the cases, that is on our c-span website. you can read the writings of kimberly johnson on the bloomberg website. john tomny about popular economics. he will join us next to talk about how economics works especially with pop culture references.

"washington journal" continues. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every house and senate member. also, district maps, of foldout map of capitol hill, a look at committees and the president cabinet. order your copy today.

it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling to the c-span online store www.c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest wrote a book taking a look at the topic of economics. it is called "popular economics." john tomny is our guest. good morning. and we get a sense of your economic philosophy question mark -- question mark guest: --? guest: the economy is a question of individuals and they have once in need. the government should remove the natural barriers to their production. rather than looking at the broad economy, i look at the individual. had a we let them be productive? host: how would you characterize

that? guest: i would almost say that supply-side is, logical. had you stimulate demand? you stimulate the supply-side of the economy. how do you move the barriers so that people can produce so that they can consume? host: i'm sure you know that has a perception. what do you think the reality is when it comes to that thinking? guest: the perception of free markets is markets run rampant and corruption. in reality, all of free market is is buyers and sellers and people with differing viewpoints. i have something i want to sell and someone once it and they

enter the market with something else. individuals turn scarcity into abundance. host: john tomny, the book you wrote, one of the things that you write about economics is there is nothing mysterious about economics and you add that it is all around us. i'm sure those who took economics classes might not jive with that kind of thinking. guest: that's a great question. that's why i wrote the book. it bothered me so much that economics has been taught in terms of percentages and graphs and charts and demand curves. that is not what economics is about. it is about human action and people. my basis for this is i think americans are missing out on enormous amounts of prosperity because economics has been miss

explained. if you want to understand taxes follow the rolling stone migrations. let's look at lebron james for free trade. if you want to understand this expertly, look at the buffalo chicken wing it. it is not up scare. host: if you want to ask questions for our guest, we have divided the lines differently by income brackets. let's start with the rolling stones. they are a prime example about taxation. guest: let's call taxes for what

they are, they are a penalty placed on work. it's hard to imagine that the top income was 83% in the 1970's. as keith richards pointed out that was the equivalent of being told to read the country. they moved to the south of france to make one of their great all-time albums. the rich are fairly mobile in avoiding taxes. they can legally get away from that. what about the sound engineers and the drivers? what about the middle class workers who go into the making of an album? they could not move with the rolling stones to the south of france. the people who really pay that penalty are those who are not rich. host: because they left, they could not get access to their incomes if they stayed in england. guest: the rolling stones could

leave england, but those middle-class workers could not. they missed out on a job. most are familiar with how hollywood is very pro-taxation. they vote for the candidate that race is the income tax on the rich. hollywood is one of the biggest tax of reuters. it's the same idea. ben affleck can leave california and make a movie in georgia. the gaffers, the studio technicians, the camera operators, they can't move with them when they make a movie out of state. it's the middle income earners who suffer the most. host: are there lessons to be learned in terms of taxation as we move into the 2016 season?

guest: i hope it's part of the discussion. let's stop talking about taxes and start calling it a price penalty. it raises the cost of work. the people it hits most often are people who are not rich. the creation of uber it has created 20,000 middle-class jobs. it was the result of jeff bezos directing some of his disposable income at this business. imagine how many more businesses could be created if we're not taxing the rich so much. they can't sit on their wealth. host: the book is "popular economics." that is the writing of our guest john tomny. derek is up first.

he is in minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. i've got to tell you, this is a breath of fresh air. you are exactly right. i was an entrepreneur for 22 years. in minnesota, if you are not a large corporation, it is so hard to compete. everything is steered toward the big companies. we are going to have big companies and government and everybody lives off the government and buying the big company products. that is what we have if we don't have access to capital. i am looking forward to reading your book. guest: thank you very much. you are describing something that there are no entrepreneurs without capital and that is what

you said. if we want to have new business formation, we need capital. the quickest way to have the economy of all is to leave wealth with the rich. they are going to invest in microsoft and intel and google. it's people like you that powers forward. let's free up the economy so more of you can flourish. host: kyle is in new hampshire. go ahead. caller: i have a problem with the big wealth. they use their money against us. they go into the commodities markets. they buy up companies and usually when they do that, there are a lot of jobs lost.

companies moved overseas so they don't have to pay taxes or pay wages. there are a lot of things that the big-money people do that the little people can't do. they skew the laws in their favor. i would like to hear your comments. guest: on the commodity question i think what has to be stressed is if you want to blame anybody for the commodities spike in modern times look no further than the united states treasury. the bush administration and the obama administration wanted a week dollar. with the dollar in decline, oil and commodities spiked. that had a very little to do with rich people entering the markets. in the 80's and 90's, the strong

dollar was pursued. ronald reagan and bill clinton were strong dollar presidents. president nixon was explicit in his desire for a week dollar. i don't think it's fair to blame the wit -- rich. it had nothing to do with the rich hoarding commodities. in a broader sense, what happens when the rich get their wealth? what happens when michael bloomberg holds onto his billions? they are redistributed to those who are not michael bloomberg through loans. if he invests in the stock market, he is providing capital for the very businesses that expand and create jobs.

if he wants to invest in private equity, he is providing capital for businesses that are trying to turn themselves around with venture capital. without the rich, it would be a cruel world and one that would mean much less capital for those of us who are not rich to pursue their dreams. host: what about people buying up companies and moving overseas and jobs being lost in the process. guest: is it wrong for nike to have an office in new york? i don't see the difference between having an office in new york or overseas. businesses are in the work of creating process. there are 8000 jobs in oregon. they have profitably made their

products overseas. look at the jobs in the portland area. if we don't engage with the world, other companies will and there will be no companies and no jobs. host: they are making shoes in vietnam. guest: they are paid a lower wage, but look at the result of that. they began by walking to work and now many of them drive cars. it's a beautiful story of capitalism raising all boats. low-wage workers are very expensive. the vast majority of venture capital still flows to san francisco, boston, and new york. if they were solely attracted to low wages on the other side of the earth, then san francisco new york and boston would be

bereft of people. what this tells us is the u.s. they have high skilled workers and that's why it's such a lure for investment capital around the world. host: john is up next from missouri. thank you for holding on. caller: i am wondering, did you forecast the collapse of the housing market and the stock market? i am calling on the line for under $25,000. i was able to forecast it simply by walking out to the mailbox each day and turning on my television every night. i walked to the mailbox every day and there were six or seven credit cards in their for me

making less than $25,000. when i turned on the television, there would be 25 people wanting me to take out another loan on my house. they know i don't have any money but they what me to borrow some from somebody else. i don't have a degree in economics, but i was able to forecast it. what you think is been best for the united states? trickle down economics or voodoo economics? what you think is done the best for the working man in the united states? guest: did i predict the meltdown? no one did. i had my misgivings.

you can look back to 2005 and 2006. the rush on housing was a negative economic signal. resembled the jimmy carter economy of the 1970's. no one predicted the meltdown because it was created by the government. what you're describing is a surge of credit available to people who wanted to buy a home or who wanted to take out a mortgage on their home. this was the creation of government and creating a week dollar that made assets more attractive. it was a creation of the government bailing out the banks. there would've been a very healthy creation in the economy and no crisis. the intervention created an unnecessary panic in the marketplace that would have

never revealed itself if the bush administration had sat back and said bear stearns is no business and we are going to let this run its course. to your next question, you could argue that they are a mash of the same thing. reagan basically was of the view that the individuals are the source of economic growth. it's not the government. let's remove the monetary and regulatory barriers. reagan got taxes right. the price of work was reduced. deregulation began under jimmy carter with railroads and airlines and continued under reagan. reagan was not as good on trade. tariffs went up. that hindered him. if you look at the dollar, a

ronald reagan ran on returning to a gold standard and a stable dollar. the dollar was much stronger and this drove investment. i think reaganomics and supply-side are very similar. when people are allowed to prosper, the gains flow down to everyone. host: we have divided the phone lines by income levels. steve is in oklahoma. you were on. steve from oklahoma? we will move on to john from ohio. caller: can you hear me? human nature existed before adam smith. there is a certain amount of greed and selfishness.

however, there are unbridled free markets all over the united states. if you want to domesticate them someone has to rope them. some compromise is not a dirty word. we created a monopoly. there are other problems along the way. you can move the goalposts all over again. you can change the game. level playing ground we are not looking for heaven in the free market. i am all for capitalism, but look at what happened. what did we learn from the savings and learn -- loan fiasco? since globalization, the worst financial crisis, what did we

do? they ruined the world economy. i have nothing against the free market. let's have some regulation. let's do something. there is no perfect solution. host: we will let our guest respond to that. guest: who is going to be this regulator? who is going to be this genius that can see and do the future and for tell what's going to be a problem? evidence supports the claim that no one exists like this. they would be earning billions in the private sector. the free markets themselves are great regulators. it was said back in the 1960's that if gm is not restrained, it

will be the only company in existence. fast forward 40 years and they had to go to the taxpayer to remain in existence. but reminds us is the profits are the surest signals that new interests will compete for those profits. gm was not the sole company in the auto company. coca-cola was once thought to be too powerful. you saw how quickly consumers slapped them into reality. that is the norm. you see this all the time. markets figure these things out much more quickly. one of the examples i use in the book is monday night football. it's in an institution. when it was rolled out and presented as an idea, one of the

greatest television men ever said i have zero interest in this. you see how wrong he got it. anheuser-busch advertised on monday night football. they turned it down. they lost a lot of market share. markets are a much better way of officiating what he describes for reducing the power. host: would you call for no regulations? what degree are we talking about? guest: i would call for no regulations. i hope this is not taken the wrong way. we are talking about the people who could not get jobs in pharmaceuticals and aerospace trying to overseas those who could. they are going to get it wrong

because they don't have the skills to do it. it presumes that some bureaucrat knows the future of the marketplace. i think that's wrong it easily disproves will. -- this provable. the best minds in movies turned down gone with the wind. the suits at paramount did not want marlon brando for the godfather. let's point out the movie the terminator, o.j. simpson was up for the role. they said there is no way the american people would believe this guy could be a murderer. they chose arnold schwarzenegger instead. regulation presumes that people

who work in government can see the future. even in the business world, they don't have a good sense of what the future is going to be like. host: "popular economics" is the book. for those who make over $100,000, you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? hello? host: go ahead. you're on. caller: can you hear me? i am sorry about that. i wanted to talk to. there are some things you have said that struck a cord with me. taxes, you keep talking about this as a penalty. i don't see it as a penalty so much as paying rent to use the

roads, the police that protect you. i'm not going to dwell on that. number two, you talk about how high taxes were in reagan's time. it was 90% back in the 60's. you are talking about the gross tax rate and not the net tax rate. the net tax rate today is 14%. i don't know how much lower you want to go. there are some corporations in the united states that are paying zero taxes. the mom-and-pop shops, they are not afforded those same's tax breaks -- same tax breaks. they are paying a lot of taxes. it bothers me, you are a libertarian and that is very obvious. i would love to live in a

libertarian world. i have to put on rose-colored glasses in order for that to work. if you don't have regulations people die because of greed. guest: there are a lot of questions there. i am a libertarian and i would love to live in a libertarian world. like you, i like the idea that mom-and-pop businesses pay high rates of taxation, that i don't like that businesses pay 14%. i don't see why one should be penalized for being successful. what they do is great for the economy. i think they should be taxed less. what needs to be asked is who is better at allocating the resources? you talk about how we should have these taxes and that it's a form of rent, do you want john boehner allocating your rent

money? the you want mitch mcconnell and harry reid allocating rent money? i don't. in my perfect libertarian world it would occur on a local level. if you want to live in a city that has a bunch of regulators that is your choice. each state was supposed to be a laboratory of ideas. the federal government was supposed to do very few things. i would choose a state where the government offers less and we would all be happy because the disputes would be local. i think we and a sense of greed. i just want less government than you do. you might choose a lot and i think we should choose less.

host: the line for those who make over $100,000. charlie, hello. caller: a lot of what was talked about i agree with. everything the writer has been saying. in the wealth of nations john -- adam smith talks about how you have to tax. you have to get money away from the people who are earning all the money or else they will end up with all the money and you have to have estate taxes. not let it go generation to generation or you end up of a monarch. that is the way things are. we elected officials with those taxes and have a government that sets regulations and make sure air is clean and water is clean. we will roads, superhighways. we take care of our elderly and make sure parents and grandparents can live a decent

life as they and their days. we let children get educated. taxation is what we pay for a civilized society. we're supposed to be progressing . we're not like wild west gunslinging animals. we have to be moving forward and to be thinking this libertarian nonsense is doable, you're going to end up with an islamic state. thanks a lot. guest: i would say, does anyone really believe that if the federal government work building roads that we would be all sitting in the different parts of the u.s. wishing we could get the florida and new york but for government not building the roads? i think that is a bridge too far. assuming the government did not build the roads, we would have them. we have got shoes and we do not have them because of the federal

government. we have them because market actors decided people wanted shoes and fulfilled a need. that is a more obscure argument. let's address charlie plus point about how would if we did not have taxes, the rich would have it all. imagine what happens if paris hilton gets to hold onto all of her millions. she cannot spend it all so she puts it in the bank. banks aren't lending it out to people who need a new car -- banks are lending it out to people who need a new car. her wealth is being redistributed to companies that need wealth to expand. private equity for companies that need to turn around. redistributing wealth to intel's and microsoft's of the future. by definition, they are redistributing it. dealing difference is john

boehner and nancy pelosi are not allocating it. i would trust the best investors in the world over boehner and pelosi any day of the week. charlie brings up the idea of a world without an estate tax. what happens when governments tax away estate wealth? what they are doing is robbing the economy of capital that will fund the dreams of those are do not have an estate. one of the examples i use is espn. it was a joke in the 1970's. it nearly went under but for a $10 million investment on the getty oil trust. john paul getty was the richest american in the 1970's. not about the ritual and onto wealth, ask yourself about all the businesses that are not funded because the wealth of the rich is being taxed away. if you want to keep monarchs

down, let the rich hold onto their wealth. they have to invested in new ideas. host: let's hear from charles in north carolina. between $26,000 and $50,000. caller: i like with the caller before said. it is impossible to tax the rich out of their money when they can take businesses overseas and paying less taxes. you said that investors create jobs -- a man create jobs not investors. if there was no demand for things, investors will not put money into the economy. i like with the caller said about libertarians. the thing is, if things were left up to the states we would be in a world of trouble because each state is different. different types of people in different states. some states practice racism against other people. there are some states that put money in some parts of their states and other parts they put

very little money. for instance, some parts of the urban community, very little money put down. the same thing in some of the rural areas. the state i come from, most of the money in states go to people who are already fortunate with their money. that is pretty much what is going on all over the country. when the economy fell, you said that thing about rich folks having all their money, they would have to give their money up, very little. when the dodd-frank bill -- glass-steagall -- if there was more regulations, the wealthy would do -- if there were less regulations, the wealthy would do with the want to do. guest: an interesting point

about how states can be racist. that is the point. if you look at the law throughout history involving race, they were put down by governments. it is hard for a business to discriminate based on race because businesses are in the business of profit. they almost by definition have to be more colorblind in what they do. i'm calling for reduced government because if you look throughout history, governments have killed a lot of people. they have force and are able to do things a business cannot do. a business must please you to get your business. governments do not have to do that. in terms of wealth and how it gets there, who do you trust? would you trust john boehner and nancy pelosi? have they done a good job of redistributing wealth created by society? do you trust more the free markets? let's look at what the free markets of done throughout history. there was a time before john d

rockefeller that when night fell it was bleak. he literally lit up the night by making kerosene broadly available. henry ford, it is to be that only the rich had access to automobiles. henry ford got rich by virtue of turning the automobile into a common good. michael dell is worth the lien's today precisely because he took a computer that in the 1960's cost over $1 million and made it broadly available. where does abundance come from? it comes from the private sector . when government is taxing away limited wealth, it is taxing away future dell computers future ford motor company's that if allowed to produce could transform our lives. countries were governments tax away all the wealth, people do not get to enjoy these things is much. host: you'll probably hear from bernie sanders as he announces

-- re-solidifies his commitment to becoming the democratic presidential candidate. he idea of income inequality. you said inequality of income and wealth does not matter in a capitalist society. it is nondiscriminatory. the 1% club is always open. guest: i begin the chapter with inequality -- with income inequality is beautiful. when income inequality and wealth inequality is rising, that is a signal that the lifestyle gap between the rich and poor is shrinking. how do people get rich? they take what was once formally only available to the very few the very rich, and they make it broadly available to people of all income classes. henry forgot rich because he turned the car into an item we could all own. the cell phone cost $3995.

you want to to make a call from washington, d.c. to baltimore, it would cost you a fortune. nowadays we have phones the call around the world and cost next to nothing. the result was more and more americans had access to things wants only enjoyed by the rich. -- wonce only enjoyed by the rich. economies of individuals. are we as individuals made worse off when we get to pursue that which animates our individual talents the most? that which makes us most unequal to our peers? i think we are better off. imagine what a world it would be if we could not pursue what makes us great. is the world worse off because

the beatles became very rich making music that everyone could enjoy? is the world was off -- worse off because michael jordan was such a better basketball player? business is no different. we are better for people like steve jobs getting rich and improving our lives. if the world were more equal but they had chosen to be layabouts. host: would you make the argument that those at low economic scales, it is more difficult to pursue what animates them? guest: i think the inequality we describe makes it more likely they will be able to pursue that which animates their skills. if we freed up the economy more, getting to pursue that which elevates their inequality would be greater. over 100 years ago in the u.s., one of your only options was to work on the farm.

i can tell you with utter certainty that if i would've lived a life of poverty and people would of called me lazy. a would have because i do not have a clue about how to do that. i cannot think i would've been good on the farm. thanks to economic growth, i've gotten to choose what i wanted to do in life. this is kind of unique around the world. americans get to think about when we are young, what we will do when we are adults. for most people it is about survival. this inequality, what it is signaling is the process by where americans at least get a chance to pursue that which animates their talents. in other parts of the world it is about survival. host: john tamny, our guest. allen, from east chicago indiana. caller: thank you for having me

on. i appreciate it. i guess you got the county our best the comedy hour. -- the comedy hour. it is cracking me up. this is the whole argument i heard before. it is reaganomics. it is boo to economics -- voodoo economics. it does not work, has not worked, will never work. by allowing reagan thought freeing up more money corporations, yes it would trickle down to the rest of the people increase more jobs but the exact opposite happened. they would give the money away. the only create more jobs if there is a demand for your product and you need more people to work at it. the people require rich do not go out and create jobs out of the goodness of their heart. they are there to make money not to give away. this whole thing about the

voodoo, it has never worked. reagan instituted two of the biggest tax increases in history of this country at the time in an effort to turn the economy around. as bill clinton once said, it is the economy, stupid. i know i'm talking over you. i've so much to say. this income inequality stuff. since 1979 to maybe 2005, the top 5% saw their wealth increase from a trillion dollars to $40 trillion. only a certain amount of money flowing around the united rates. -- flowing around the united states. the government regulates. that's another thing. regulation. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: to some degree, allen is

right. businesses are not in business because a charity. people do not get rich out of love. they do not hire workers out of love. so what? i talk about henry ford a lot in the book. henry ford raised the wages of his workers in the early part of the 20th century to well above the market average. it is taught in history class in school that he did this so people would buy his cars. the reason henry ford raised the wages was because he was too expensive not to do it. he was experiencing 370% annual turnover at the factories. it was too expensive to continue losing workers, he offered a higher wages so they would not even. -- they would not leave him. capitalism does not necessarily bring the kindest people into the business world but it makes them kind in actions.

ford paid extra because he was tired of losing workers. we see this with companies across the income scales. starbucks offers health insurance because they want to keep good workers around. you look at the higher end, a company like google. i offer free lunch, free massages, also its of things to make it exciting for the workers to come to work every day. it is not for love that capitalism creates such abundance and opportunity and high living standards. it is often the profit motive but that is a good thing. thank goodness for the profit motive. we have phones with computers on them and we can watch tv that fit in our pockets. we are close to cancer cures. we are able to fly around the world. the profit motive has shrunk the

gap between rich and poor in this best their lifestyle -- the lifestyle gap between the rich and the poor. the country music single -- singer glenn campbell. he would literally dig his fists into his stomach each night because i would feel better than the hunger he felt. the talk of this country is that we have an obesity problem across income classes. look at what the profit motive has done for all american. host: would you apply that same line of thinking for a minimum wage of $15? guest: i think the ford model tells you why you do not need that. in a city like seattle, $15 is probably not enough. such demand for workers they will pay more than $15 because it is too expensive to continue to lose workers.

all the minimum wage does is rob those with the least amount of skills of opportunity. when you are young in particular, who do not have work skills, nothing to recommend you to the business you want to work for. i tried to get lots of jobs in high school but i could not get them. if i could have worked for less, i would've been high-level. -- i would've been higher re-able. businesses have an incentive to pay you well. host: here's patrick from new jersey. you are on. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to address john with his regards to history. he is been looking at history with blinders on. when mr. ford was building his business, taxes were at the 90% range and our economy was best

between the 1940's in the 1960's were taxation was 90%. i think you have blinders when you're looking back at history. regulations are put into place due to the ineffectiveness of markets to regulate themselves. markets have proven themselves not to be able to regulate themselves. take a look at what happened at the depression. glass-steagall was instituted and in 1999 it was dissolved. it resulted in another crash due to the fact that banks no longer were loaning to people with good credit because all the good credit people were gone. they had to go to bat credit. -- go to bad credit. credit default swaps which were doomed. if you cannot predict that, your problems with your economic views. i think you think big government

is not the answer. if a corporation becomes more complex, you hire workers to handle that complexity and the workers. big government myth is also debunked. guest: let's look at the for example. my history is correct. ford was incorporated in 1903. there was not an income tax at all in 1903. the top tax rate is describing is from the 1940's to the 1960's. henry ford was able to turn it into a global behemoth before there was an income tax rate and for corporations were tax very much. he was able to push his limited profits constantly back into the perfection of the manufacturer cars that made it possible for more people around the world to own cars. the argument is that markets cannot regulate themselves.

2008. wasn't regulators who foresaw the problems in the banking is them? -- the banking system? the banking -- the banking system is the most regulated in the united date. the office of thrift and chew provision, the list goes on and on. regulators did not have a clue about the problems within. it was private investors like john paulson who had a clue. any number of people who actually saw there was a problem in the system and made an investment against it and were rewarded for doing this. these problems in the banks were not discovered by the government. they were discovered by profit motivated private investors. in terms of glass-steagall, the simple truth is glass-steagall had nothing to do with what took place in 2008. it was faulty lending practices among the banks. they were legal to do that.

which banks were the ones that were able to come in and save some of the errant ones? hybrid banks that the erasure of glass-steagall made possible. wells fargo, jpmorgan, bank of america, hybrid banks made possible by the erasure of glass-steagall grable able to come in and save the banks that were in trouble that were not hybrid. host: on the cover of your book there is a picture of lebron james. what does he teach us about economics? guest: the wonders of free trade. lebron is easily the best basketball player in the world. no one would debate that. he is such a good athlete it is widely agreed in the nfl that he could be a pretty good nfl tight end. if he played in the nfl, it would be at the expense of being the best fastball player in the world. he could not do both -- the best basketball player in the world.

he could not do both. we try to get all the things that we do not have. if lebron did both, he would earn less. instead, he focuses on what he is best at and it gives him the most market power to go into the marketplace and import from across the street and across the world the close he wears, the food he eats, the houses he lives in. focus on what we are best at, that is the beauty of free trade. not only does it mean that the world is buying to serve our needs, the most powerful -- the most talented people in the world by to give us bargain. and maximizes the possibility that the will -- the possibility that we will do the work that most animates us. if we tried to so our clothes manufacture the computers we type on, if we tried to raise the food we eat, we would live lives of unrelenting drudgery.

host: you can see successes played out in something like nafta? guest: free trade is a positive does it signals the process whereby not just people in the city we live in but around the world are buying to serve our needs -- buying to serve our needs. free trade is undeniably brilliant because we have more people vying to serve our needs. people will say that free trade kills jobs. if you believe that, let's not only put up borders to foreign goods but let's abolish the computer, the atm and the car because those are easily the biggest job destroyers in the history of mankind. they expanded the work we could

do. host: what about manufacturing and textiles unaffected by trade deals? guest: markets have said those jobs are not very valuable. they've also said farm jobs of not -- are not very valuable. manufacturing is the same way. and manufacturing job in china pays the equivalent of a starbucks latte. what the markets are saying is to americans, your work is too valuable. we cannot afford you in a manufacturing role. we are to push you into higher wage jobs. jobs started moving overseas long before the present. we have experience some of the lowest unemployment in the 80's -- in the 1980's and 1990's because the economy was growing. you grow the economy by adapting the basics to growth i described my book. host: judy on our line for those

who make under $25,000. you're on with our guest. caller: what is to stop the rich from using overseas labor putting all their money in overseas banks and selling to overseas people and completely bypassing us? united states citizens? guest: nothing is to stop them. businesses are in the business of profit. if you look at a company like nike, is it worse off because nike employs people in vietnam? obviously not. one of the most profitable brands on earth. portland possible as a result of nike employing people around the world. in your daily work constantly outsource. businesses are merely doing what we individuals do.

they are farming out work to people around the world to ensure the greatest number of profits. that leads to more job creation through investment. nike would not employ any americans if it did not employ people around the world. if nike puts billions of dollars in a bank overseas, where does that money have to go? generally it is going to be let back to some business concept or some small individual who needs a car loan or college tuition in the united states. the money is invariably flowing back to the united states. what you want to maximize is the possibility that businesses are earning a lot of money. if they do, that money is being redistributed to people like you and me. host: this is todd. makes over $100,000. caller: i wish this was not part of your broadcast your announcing people plus income. -- people plus income.

when he made the comment about the banks being heavily regulated, as well as should be it is because banks are so regulated that the free market is available -- is able to operate the way that it does. the more banks are regulated the easier it is for the free markets to operate the way that they do because their protection is from the regulations of the bank so that they can move freely. when he brought up lebron james and talked about what he does best and how the -- how our system has made a good for him it is not what you do best in society as much as it is most profitable. that is the thing that helps you move along and that is what is helping lebron james. it is the thing that is most profitable for him. i think you over praise capitalism when you say that

even the poor in this country are having a problem with obesity and you are implying because of the abundance of access to food. capitalism might really be the problem that causes the obesity because high-quality food is very expensive in comparison to cheap, just keep you going from day-to-day food that is not really good for your system. if time permits, i would like you to go back to what you said about reagan being poor on trade because although you may a lot of sense to me, you moved over that one to quickly. he said reagan was poor on trade, he should have hammered out how that has been such a negative impact on this country since reagan possibly. i'm with you. i'm listening. guest: in terms of banks what is the least regulated sector in the united states, silicon valley. just about every business in silicon valley fails. there is no regulation or safety

net. that is why it is the most wealthy part of the united states if not the world because when you do not have regulation you can have the failure that leads to perfection and success. imagine how much healthier the banking system would the if we had more failure and less regulation. this was said by the former ceo of morgan stanley, your number one client is government. that is what has become of this overprotected banking system. it serves government more than it does allocating capital to businesses of the future. we would be so much better off and capitalism would have a better reputation banks were allowed to fail in the way that silicon valley firms and movies and all that are allowed to fail. if we love the banks, we should deregulate them and let them fail. in terms of lebron, fairpoint.

i think in general, when people do something they love, they are far more productive and it ultimately leads to profits. you have a point but overall, in society, pursue would you are best at and at some point you're going to find a path to income doing that. over praise capitalism, you talked about how that food is what is causing the obesity. aren't we lucky to live in the united states? what high-class problems we have of too much food? if that is true, if in fact it is the higher-quality food enjoyed by the rich that is going to reduce obesity, that is what you can predict about the future. if you want to see with the future is going to be like for the middle west and poor, look at what the rich enjoy. if it is food, that is the next

thing some entrepreneur is going to make broadly available to those were not rich. reagan on trade if you look at free-trade overall it has been undeniably good for the united states simply because it means that every day america opens its market to foreign goods the american people get a raise. economy is a collection of individuals. we are made better off in the world -- when the world is competing to serve us. host: john tamny, popular of the best author of the book "popular economics." thank you for your time. for our final half-hour. if you want to call, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. washington journal will continue after this. ♪

>> the new congressional directory is a guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. a foldout map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governments. order your copy today. it is $13.95, plus shipping and handling at c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: the lines for open phones. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents.

this deal between charter communications in time warner cable. usa today saying a cash and stock deal. the prospective merger of the nation's cable companies could create a newly strengthened -- that is the story in the usa today as well as others this morning. david, your first -- you are up first. . caller: that guest was articulate with what he said, it also is good on paper. in fact, it never did work. caller from indiana pointed out reaganomics really never did work. it did work for rich folks but it never did trickle down. it helped out -- it was supposed

to trickle down but it did not. people used the money just to move overseas and they did not do things they were originally going to do when it first started. the glass-steagall thing, he scoffed at that. that was created after the depression and the banking thing . for 50 years, the glass-steagall worked to keep the commercial banks separated from the investment banks. as soon as that firewall was taken away, that is what happened. thanks used taxpayer money to bail themselves out of risky things they knew they were engaged in. for him to scoff at those ideas he sounded articulate but in reality everybody called in who said something he disagreed with was correct.

thank you. host: dan from santa barbara, california. republican line. caller: actually i am an independent. this does have to do a lot with the republican party. the reagan ranch center is here. i wanted to talk to john tamny. hopefully he can hear me. you gave a speech at the reagan center a few weeks ago promoting your book, preaching ideology of deregulation and free trade. it has become an ideology and religion the same way that reagan has become a deity and all of this has become a belief system. you did that a few weeks ago and between then and now there was a large oil spill in santa barbara , literally down the canyon from reagan's ranch. the oil company whose pipe

broke the news is come out that every pipeline in santa barbara county has had environmental regulation except this one. they did not have the regulation where they needed an automatic shut off valve. i do not how they got an exemption. they did not have to follow regulations. now we have an oil spill down the canyon from reagan's ranch. the godfather of deregulation ideology. my question would be, would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is and go down to the beach and give your talk on deregulation ideology to all the people who are down there shoveling up oil and tar off the beach? thank you. host: joe from florida independent line. caller: i want to say that bernie sanders and hillary clinton should join forces to beat the republicans.

the republicans or destroy this country little by little. thank you. host: why do you think they should join forces rather than compete separately? caller: look what happened -- we need the votes. democrats and independents need the votes. that is the only way we're going to be the republicans. everybody knows that they cheat. i mean, we need to beat the republicans. the republicans are destroying this country, big-time. thank you. host: are you a barney sandor supporter or hillary clinton supporter? caller: i like elizabeth warren but she said many times she is not going to run. bernie sanders is my first choice. my second choice is hillary clinton.

hillary clinton is way better than any republican. a lot of people like to -- i like to call them double-decker bus. those big buses from england. hillary clinton is way better than any republican. she has more experience. she cares for the people. in many countries putting money on her. they want to see a democrat because republicans want to go to war. look what happened in iraq. who profited? dick cheney made like $54 billion. dick cheney does not care about american people. all he cares, his wallet.

we have a lot of people working for minimum wage. host: i want to let you know that because you expressed interest in bernie sanders there is an event in burlington, vermont featuring senator sanders to talk about his presidential campaign. look for it later on this afternoon, scheduled to take place later on. if you want more information that will be later this afternoon. go to c-span.org for more information. the burlington free press highlights at today. this is the burlington free press. ben from oakland california, you're up next. caller: i caught the end of tamny's talk.

free trade is good for you and me and i sit there and think about all of the graphs i have seen in the past years that if shown in the 1970's and 1980's how the average guy's wages have gone down and how 90% of the profits that have been generated have gone to the top 1%. i sit there and say, his ideas of you and me are different from mine. it is this kind of disconnect between republican talking point he is pushing out again and again but says that free trade is good and free trade is creating a better world. it sounds truthy, but none of the facts have been put out last 30 years truly support that when

it comes to the average person. the other part of it is that when you have this is connect to the average person and the people with liens of dollars, -- billions of dollars, they use it to embellish their own power and position in society and are trying to take control of the government with their billion-dollar campaign funds and putting people into politics and what should be public places of power where the government is supposed to take care of the people. even jefferson says the main job of government was to do the good and happiness of the people in the republic. that is not with their money is being used for. their money is being used to put in people who will be their cronies and people who will do their bidding instead of looking at the good of the country.

host: let's hear from charlotte in delaware, republican line. caller: i am listening to this. i have to tell these people that are talking -- what they really need to do is to watch the c-span with congress and the senate in session. watch what is going on. all they are getting and hearing and repeating our political points spewed out by the democratic already. -- the democratic party. i idolized kenny -- i idolized kennedy as a young adult. one summer of listening to congress in session and i would see daschle gephardt and all their cronies come out and barefaced lie about what was said in session that day.

all these people that are following democrats are being lied to. do your own research. don't listen to the speak words that are going to direct your mind. you need to go to movie rental places and find the movie 1984. that is the direction the democrats are taking a stand. -- are taking us in. for the gentleman who thinks the koch brothers are so awful, do some research on george soros. he is crashed multiple countries in europe to take control of them and he's backing hillary. host: that a charlotte in delaware. cnn reporting iraq forces have launched a mission to liberate provinces from isis. a little more than a week after the militant group overran rome a-day -- ramadi.

that is according to the media office for the militia. an update from cnn. tilton -- terry, democrat line. caller: i'm fascinated by the fantasy libertarians. one of the first things i do that tamny talked about, get rid of the fec. if people want to invest in the ponzi scheme that is our stock market and programs like aig which committed insurance fraud where else in this world can you sell insurance that you cannot cover and not go to jail? we will never have free markets until we have a flat tax and term limits. right now, this is not a free market when one company gets a tax break and another company does not. that is how the republicans and their lives, they talk about the entitlement society.

a business and corporations have their own entitlements, tax breaks. that is how republicans give our money away. if we are going to get down to it, a free market is a flax tax -- a flat tax, let's get rid of republican and democrat at a been there for more than 12 years. 12 years in the senate, 12 years in the house and go home to your regular job. no more career politicians. they keep telling us -- mitch mcconnell, patty murray, jim mcdermott, they've been there for over 20 years. we keep reelecting them and they created the mess. flat tax, term limits and his citizens united says corporations are a person, no more corporate tax. tax them as individuals. they are people. thank you. host: tom in san jose

california. caller: this is thomas set in. your guest did not address the issue with aig like a lot of callers are calling in right now. the reason aig got away with what they were doing is because the rating systems were getting paid to raise them by aig. the old saying. he also said let the banks fail. that means my money is going to be lost. he did not bring that up. when i was growing up in the 19, you can raise a family on one income. in the 70's, i put myself through college because i had four checks a week and one check paid my rent. i live in silicon valley, rent right now is averaging $2300 a month. the average employer pays employees about $60,000 in year

so you are taking over two weeks rent -- two weeks income to pay your rent. why is that happening? incomes have not kept up with the cost of inflation. i wrote a book called 2199 about this. i think your guest was misleading the people. thank you very much. host: in the washington post, a story saying senator that cochran married a long time 81 year after his office swatted down rumors amid criticism of their taxpayer-funded travel. an executive assistant who joined his office in 1981 in a private family ceremony in gulfport, mississippi. his issue -- his office issued a statement on monday. weber had joined cochran on public funded trips costing more than $150,000. critics also pointed to records

that showed the six term senator rented the basement apartment of weber's $1.6 million house as proof of an untoward relationship. weber was said to attend social functions with help of the senator. it also says that cochran's wife died in december after 50 years of marriage and 13 years in a mississippi nursing home. she had dementia. ron, from pennsylvania. you are up. caller: i want to say that in 1992 when bill clinton beat george bush the first, george bush was in the background of the camera, he said we are entering a new world order. he said that. in his first term in office, obama was in mexico and he said

nations are no longer defined by their borders. i would like to say that is a consistent agenda that is continuing and no one is referring to it. what is going on with the economy is incidental. there is an agenda being followed as far as the middle east goes. i think we have to tell you it by the tail. i think our interest in iraq had nothing to do with this new world order. if we're stuck. i think -- i think we're stuck. i think it had to do with turning the u.s. reserve currency upside down because saddam hussein was working on a treaty with france. i would like to say that there is an agenda we are following in this country and nobody is addressing it, certainly not the media. host: dudley from kentucky,

hi. caller: i'm a first time caller. i've been watching you for over 40 years. my comment is, we have let multinational companies different people, soros, the koch brothers, the ones that are running this country, we do not know who they are. every president we have had since kennedy was shot. the talk about reagan. reagan started this group. he had them go down into mexico and told all these groups we are going to pillage this country. to set you free to do what you want. we are bought and paid for. we talk about terrorist groups.

we should label the republican and democratic parties as a whole, terrorist groups. they're the ones were being bought and paid. they go in office and out of office to work for companies. they're all connected. the stock market is a ponzi scheme. mercantile's, the trade, whether it is oil, soy beans energy they make a profit period. this country -- we have already lost the war in this country. we are going to have to -- i would say everyone get out of the g life force. do not buy anything. easily protest and for one day

shut this country down. let these people know we are going to put up with it anymore and do not vote these people back in. do not vote for any democrat -- i will say bernie sanders, he would be a good president. the one we missed was mr. ralph nader. every time i mention ralph nader's name, people go nuts. thank you. i don't know what else to say. host: bernie sanders later on making an announcement to talk about his presidential campaign this afternoon. watch for it on c-span. you can see it live on our website for more information. your been watching 40 years. what do you learn most from c-span? caller: i like to listen to everybody's opinion.

everybody counts. when this country was founded we all had the right for free speech and to talk. our rights are being taken away. i think it was ben franklin possibly that said, you cannot give up your freedom for security. you can't let these people listen. i can't walk out here and walk downtown in kentucky where i am at and hold a sign up and say i like this or i don't like that. i have to get a permit to protest. no american should have to get any permit to protest. it is like what happened into cuddy part -- in zucati park. the powers that be, we do not know who is running this country, it is not bush or

reagan, there are people behind all these politicians, whether it be mitch mcconnell or harry reid, these people are evil. we are going to have to peacefully, just like martin luther king tried to do peacefully protest. we're going to have to get out on the street in mass and not be afraid of the police force, the military forces they're going to put on us. host: dudley from kentucky. we appreciate your comments. oxford, michigan. andrew. caller: i'm calling in regard to the previous libertarian guest. my problem is that i see this is all related. we need to repeal nafta. we need to create a flat tax. all this deregulation has created is the ability for the

billionaire to go overseas and find employees to make sense of the dollar. when he to put up the trade wall and have regulations that are here imposed everywhere else by creating, if you're overseas and you don't have any rules, yet the pay a tax to sell products here. it will create jobs and infrastructure by applying those taxes to roads and schools. he did not touch on the fact that steve jobs, i'm from detroit, steve jobs does not come from school systems like detroit. we deregulate, we don't pay taxes. we have bad roads and no education. we need to create an environment where steve jobs can be created. thank you. host: bob from pennsylvania. democrat line. caller: i wanted to take a second to say i don't understand

what is wrong with this country. it depends on who you are. i don't understand it. host: shirley from emmitsburg, iowa. democrat line. caller: look up these facts. in the united states. we have harsh drug laws. in portugal, they've decriminalized all their drugs. they have no more problems. they are very happy. they did that about 12 years ago. in iowa, there are about seven women in prison to every 100 men in prison. it is twice as many as it used to be after we put in such strong drug laws. where's our freedom in this country? if you look up my facts, you

will find that we use so much more sugar in this country than what many other countries do. we have a lot more alzheimer's and a lot more diabetes. why don't we do something about that? we harshly talk against our va hospitals read consumer reports said our private hospitals are almost half a million people are accidentally killed each year. just by mistakes that are made. aren't those worth going into some detail with your guests? host: that is surely in iowa, offering suggestions for future topics. usa today takes a look at the president's success rate when it comes to what is happening. at least six major cities have

passed paid six lead laws -- sick leave laws. 17 states and six major cities of taken action including los angeles last week. it can read more of that in the usa today. camera, independent line. -- cameron, independent line. caller: the pursuit of happiness cannot happen without creation of wealth. since we live in a global world today, this can only happen if there is a healthy flow. i think deregulation is a stumbling block. it prevents the flow in reality and it does not achieve what those people think that it does

achieve. too much bureaucracy creates stalin and mao with a different name. there has to be a formula for not blocking the flow. the flow of wealth, the flow of momentum which brings about the healthy environment for the creation of capital. i think that is the bottom line. taxation is about bringing more money for public service etc.. in reality it does not help the flow. the same question is about deregulation. does it help the flow? if we keep that perspective, it might ring to life a lot of new questions and answers. host: let's hear from randy in eastland, texas. he will be the last call.

are you on? that is it for our program today. another program comes at 7:00 tomorrow. an event that is just about to take place at the atlantic council that takes a look at the topic of the iran nuclear deal. it also takes a look at how european nations have to deal with what will eventually come out of this deal. this is in washington by the atlantic council. [indiscernible]