at 8:30 a.m., steven of the heritage foundation discusses the tax plans of the 2016 presidential >> america is tired of we girls in the oval office. we need to have strength and decision and authority back in the oval office. i am proud to announce my candidacy for the republican nomination for the united states of america. ♪ ♪ host: that was chris christie becoming the 14th republican to throw his hat into the ring for the 2016 presidential nomination.

kristi has been scheduled today in maine and new jersey. we want to get your reaction to chris christie's campaign launch. how will he in fact the republican primary deal as is did you grow further. you can also catch up with us on twitter, faith, or e-mail. he began talking about chris christie's campaign launch. he said he is in.

he officially began his run for president. you can see the picture in the front page they are. the wall street journal "christie promises to be christie." " christie joins gop governors touting executive experience." governor scott walker and john kasich ohio are preparing to campaign as well. the des moines register with a headline on christie. which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] we went to get your thoughts . he campaign promises. [video clip] governor chris christie: i want to promise you a few things are

a campaign without and or pandering or focus group tested answer. you are going to get what you think whether you like it or not or whether it makes you cringe every now and then or not. a campaign when i asked a quest and i will give the answer to the western that is asked, not the answer that my political consultant is only to give back age. -- back stage. a campaign that every day will not worry about what is popular what is right. what is right will fix america not what is popular. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [applause] a campaign that believes in an america that is a great as the hopes and genes that we want everyone of our children to have, not a campaign that tears

people down in a campaign that read don't america to a place where you and i are and where we want to freak people around the world to grow up and in this country as well. that is what america has always said work. [end video clip] host: as a centric candidate he would have a difficult path under the best of symptoms is. -- circumstances. circumstances or any england optimal for him. conservative voters dominate the -- host: we want to hear from you.

our phase of pages open as well. -- facebook pages open as well. michael right that it is one of the better candidate. ted is waiting caller: to organize a campang warchest.

he comes off like he is telling it like it is but he is so insincere through and thruoghough it is in his dna. you out to look at his record in new jersey. host: that is ted

we used to get a property tax rebate. that stopped when mr. christie became governor. he has replaced that with another program. we didn't get a bit of a discount. it is much less than we used to get. host: you are in new jersey.

i want to bounce off of you. they write that it was tough but sentimental here it was often off the cost. as the did they hear this will go to you. do you think he will make an impact the presidential field? caller: i think he will stir things up. so will mr. trump. they both have a similar style. that will make the debate more interesting and entertaining. i do not think he has too good of a chance of getting the nomination. i hope not. host: new jersey, faster line for residents. (202) 748-8003.

can also follow along the conversation on twitter http://twitter.com/cspanwj. he said there will now be more candidates than voters. christie is a minor-league player attempting to break into the major-league but he is not major-league material proved that here in new jersey. we are looking for your thoughts and calls this morning. carol is a net in nevada. free democrats. -- is up next in nevada. democrats. caller: he is a bad governor and he would be a bad president. what is he is telling are a bunch of lies and host: what are

some examples of the life he has told? caller: i cannot think of any offhand. he said he didn't have anything to do with but he was the mastermind behind it. he had this. then he is disrespectful. he disrespectsa his elders whenever they appear at his town hall meetings. they had 1000 people out there yesterday protesting his running for president. he is bad all the way around. host: that is carol in nevada.

his joint doing support in new jersey bodes ill for these eight, ratingwriting that only 30% approve of his job performance and 39% "dislike everything." they write that his style was never left to last. he is more of the thin skins bully and willing to accept any criticism. let's see what tiffany of that. new jersey, good morning. caller: how are you? host: good. caller: i just think chris christie is terrible. he is terrible. i do not want the american people are in a virion sees and

to think that she is some genuine, consumer man. when you are at town halls he does not let you asked a question if he does not like it. he will cut you off. he will tell you to sit down and shut up. that is not the type of president we want. i do not think any of the american people do. host: had he attended one of his town halls? caller: i was in belmar one year and my grandmother on the board walk. what's written the office there was a marine asking the governor a question and he asked him to sit down and shut up. we look at each other and were appalled. that you can treat any service member like that whether you like the question or not. i have no reason for the man. what he did to our teachers and firefighters and police officers and assigning unconstitutional

legislation and turning around and saying we will keep your pensions in place and in the supreme court said it was unconstitutional. now our pensions are gone. i do not know. i just want the rest of the country to understand that he can say all he wants that he is telling the truth but i do not believe that. host: new jersey, a couple of our collars breaking up his record. he talked about his record in his campaign launched yesterday. here is a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] governor chris christie: we are recovering from the national disaster. we have worked together to do it. as governor i have proved that you can sense talk and fight the most powerful vessel interest

this date has to have in stockton but at the same time it reaches across the aisle to our friends in the democratic party to say if you have a good idea i am willing to work the because that is what our country needs . as governor, i will never waive you from telling the truth as i see it and then acting to make sure that you know that it is the truth as i believe it in my heart. [end video clip] (202) 748-8000 chris christie becoming t they are showing when and how they launch their campaign. it is taking the most usual route. some candidates choosing videos, tweets, and news conference

governor walker expected to. enter the race on july 15th. it would make it seem make 15 republicans. more democrats on that chart. we are taking your calls and comments. i want to hear your recent fonts to his launch yesterday. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make a couple of comments. chris christie has said that he did not raise taxes. some of the property taxes went up. at least in illinois the governor has no control over the property tax. that is handled locally. chances are he said he did not raise taxes because he had no effect on property taxes.

he says he does not like. our president has like two is all along about health care and many other things. it is all a matter of how you take what somebody says in twisted around. do you think he would pick him in a republican primary ballot? caller: it is way too early. i want to hear what these are to say more than one time. they all will moderate a little bit as they go a long. to start downgrading somebody at this point i think is a d matter of bias, not common sense. host: so much of the talk around chris christie involved his style. what do you think of how he engages with voters and she went

? -- and constituents? caller: and what i hear, i like what he does. this one lady indicated he tells people to sit down and he will not listen to him. that would be bad. i like the fact that he is abrupt. he does not mince words. i think that is good. host: you can see the average of polls out there and looking at the average of be polls on the republican primary fields. that has jeb bush at 13.8%. chris christie adages 4%. scott walker he is expected to enter at 11.4%. mr. marco rubio at 11%. the only one above double

digits. if you want to see a polling chart that includes up to 16 different candidate that is what it looks like at real clear politics. this is just the very early polls of the 2016 presidential fields. that is just the republicans. let's go to maria in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i am so glad you're happy this topic. i would like everyone in the united date to the where -- st ates beware of governor chris christie. he is a bully. he tried to move a branch of rutgers university out. we had to position -- petition. he arrived about the dream act. first he opposed it. when he found that he could get

some spanish vote he reversed himself. most importantly, he goes after entitlements as if people on social security were cheating people. it has been used for other will. i really do want him to know that whatever his mother taught him she should have taught him better. please have on robert mcneil. he is ready to declare for president. it would be worth your while to have them on for one time. host: julius, line for democrats. you are on. caller: we need to move this clown car down to florida because nobody is going to vote

for him. i do not know whether he is up there trying to run for president. he is not presidential material. bobby jindal's heavy duty style you need to pick him up and taken to present. winky. -- thank you. host: a few more tweakets that came in. because agency to go off like a rocket. the excitement on him leaving is of the charts and races approval ratings by 10 points. governor christie hammered today it says he is untruthful. the editorial board writes that there are lines between brash

and litter and in between telling it like it is and not telling the truth . he has taken some instructive stance on immigration videos loc but he h legislation to allow itas blocked -- back to our line for publicans. mississippi go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that i like chris christie's title. it'll take a strong, opinionated person to stand up or all of

these lying democrats in the liberal press. other than that, we do not have a chance. host: eight you were picking someone right now, would it be chris christie or is it too soon ? caller: it is too soon. i really think chris christie should have ran be work. i think he had a good chance. i like donald trump. i like anyone who is willing to stand up and the truth and say what they really feel. they are not own these. -- phonies. someone strong. if the republicans put jeff bush in, we will never win. i hope all of the republicans out there think long and hard before you vote for bush. ithink

he is a great person and he would be a good president but he will never win. host: speaking of a jeb bush, relief of 33 years of tax returns he made public. they reported $28.5 million in adjusted as income from 2007-2013. the income topped out at 7.3 million in the year 2013. -- there are filings for several years that have previously been to those during his campaign for governor. david is up next, mesquite, texas. line for democrats. your thoughts? caller: first and above all the

entire republican party is a joke. the only ones that stand a chance in hell would be chris christie sorry i meant to say jeb bush and bobby jindal. the rest i do not see a chance. host: why is that? caller: they obviously will not get the hispanic vote. they are deathly not getting the black vote. they need 80 percent-90% of the white vote. if it is spread out, they will never stand a chance in hell. i really believe that. they have gone way too far to the right. host: what do you think this style of question, how chris christie interacts with voters and constituents? caller: chris christie is smooth as silk. he definitely knows how to talk. he is very firstpersonic.gives

very good with people like bill clinton was being that is probably how he will get most of his boots. it just takes someone to read the newspaper or magazine. though on the internet. host: let's go back to the line from new jersey residents. how it is in new jersey good morning. caller: i voted democrat for most of my voting life. i voted for christie:. i was disappointed because, are you still there? host: go ahead. caller: we had a very left leaning area. the public employees of new

jersey run the state. the reason we have such high property taxes are the public employees. they are one of the highest in the united states. they are a big voting block. their pensions and benefits are ridiculous. they make 50% of what the private sector meakes.i have disappointed in chris christie because i feel he did not go far enough. he is a big talker but he hasn't rea boughtl the unions as far as i am concerned. ly people are moving out of new jersey. more people are moving out that are moving in. businesses will not come to new

jersey because of high taxes and high regulations. it is in bad shape year in south jersey. -- here in south jersey. we cannot get businesses to move in here. thank you. host: howard in new jersey this morning. i want to keep taking your calls on chris christie's campaign launch and update of some other things. united states in cuba announce an agreement on wednesday. yesterday president died eisenhower broke off relations with cuba after leaving office to increase tensions with the

revolutionary government of fidel castro. if you want to see president obama's statement on cuba, it is happening today at 11:00 a.m. you can watch it here on c-span. back to the phones. nick is on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i just read an old not too long ago talking about having around 100,000 thoughts on using taxpayer money on food and stadiums. what kind of leader things that is appropriate? host: we will go to our line for republicans. maryland. no ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. when i first heard that chris

christie was running, i thought there was no way i was going to vote for him. i listened to all the things people have said about him. i do not know him that well. i saw him on sean hannity last night. he really asked in some tough questions. he answered them all and he seemed really sincere. winky it claimed how i -- when he explained how bad his date was and how he was working with an all democratic congress they are in the state he is striving to get a lot of things at him but there's only so much you can get it done. it sounded like what president obama trying to get us to understand about moving our country forward and having to work with republicans and how hard it is.

i was very impressed with him. i think he has a positive message. one thing he said he was not going to have a lot in, i think it is good to have a positive campaign. host: the new york times described him as a centrist candidate and the troubles he might have any primary. do you think he makes a better general election than a primary? can he win a primary? caller: i do not know. that is what is going to be tough. he does have some issues that he goes more democratic with. it is hard. you have to be conservative to win the republican nomination. i just thought i would look at him. one thing is i think that we

should get a governor, someone who has been tried and a governor she was had to work with the opposite party -- who has had to work with the opposite party. originally, every time i hear one of them i think -- i was impressed with him. host: some democrats weighing in on chris christie's entrance into the presidential race. debbie wasserman schultz said governor christie would be a nightmare for america's middle class. ted cruz said i'm glad to

welcome chris christie into our diverse yields a candidate. two of the many candidates out there. back to our line for new jersey. good morning. host: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to make a point about the teacher who talked about the teachers tensions. we have a family friend whose daughter just became a teacher. starting salary was deep 55,000. a brand-new teacher, $55,000. as far as moving the university, it should have never have been there. think the worst of detroit. it is a disservice to the students. if they can move they, if it

will be really good for the students. i think with the rich business that drove me crazy. on a good day traffic into the george washington bridge is terrible. it was a made up being. when you see the new york times talking about christie being untruthful they are going to endorse hillary clinton never tells the truth. host: it sounds like you are a chris christie supporter. how do you think he just emotion felt in the fields of soon to be 16 primary candidates. caller: i want to see all of them. right now i like ted cruz iran all because they voted against the trade bill. christie is backed by big donors

just like jeff bush. -- jeb bus that bothers me. h. i do not really know who i am waiting to see. host: appreciate the call from flemington, new jersey. chris christie also talked about jobs in the economy and his expectations for what he would do if he was president. here is a bit more. [video clip] governor chris christie: we need to get our economy growing at 4% or greater. we need to make his country what my mother and father told me it was, as hard as you work is as hard as you will rise. that is not the case anymore. we cannot look at our children and they that. we have an economy that is weak that is not present them with the opportunities we had when we graduated from college. we do not worry about getting a

job. we worried about picking which job with the best for us. we knew if we worked hard we were going to be successful. this country and its leadership does the same thing to my children and yours. i'm going to give it to you. host: we taking your calls this morning. special line for new jersey residents. iran is on that line. -- byron is on that line. caller: i would just like to say that a lot of people in new jersey junot understand when they talk about employees people worked hard for these pensions. i do not see what it is a problem. people always talk about public employees making so much money. that is what america was built on. it is something to look forward

to. i do not think he has really cared about the pension system at all. a lot has old it on this. he promised if they had given up their medical that would put somebody into the pensions is in. with the teachers unions. the teachers go through a lot teaching these kids in new jersey. it is not easy. i am not saying that some of them do not do the right thing. this is not really going to make a good president at all. when you promised the people something you should follow through with it, not just tell them things.. you are going to mess with their medical and pension. everybody wants to have a fair cut at the table but you definitely need unions. host: that was byron in new jersey.

i like his straight talk. he did not tell you what you want to hear. i will take your calls for the next 10 minutes or so. i want to update you on some of the other stories around the world. greece missed its crucial debt payment to the imf. it is deepening a crisis that has haunted leaders. greece is missing the payment of 1.5 billion euros. it is another warning that the country will be unable to meet its obligations in the coming weeks. one other note, yesterday trusting gathered for a final nine farewell.

reverend was remembered yesterday at emmanuel africa methodist church. back to your calls here. for democrats. caller: i am nervous. this is my first time to call. what i would like to say chris christie is to draw a comparison. pm bobby jindal, our governor here he was running for president, are all a mirror image of each other and they are the most unpopular governors in the entire united states. bobby jindal's almost considered a criminal here in louisiana.

he has refused to expand medicaid. i was lucky enough to get on obamacare before medicaid. christie is what we consider a bully. so is bobby jindal. they push their weight around to get what they want to be elected president but in the meantime they hurt people physically by not taking care of the poor. they do not care about the poor. bobby jindal has lost five of the fact in all his opinions everything are based on his religion. we want to keep that separate from our government here. in louisiana we have had a problem with them trying to hold out. this is not about bobby jindal. bobby jindal announce running

for president a few days ago. he has not been any of the networks. he has been dropped like a hot coal into the bottom of the echelons. if you look at the things he has done. host: if you look at chris christie's entire campaign announcement you may have heard some bon jovi tunes that were accompanied parts of the rally. bon jovi "absolutely gate chris christie permission to use his songs." he posted a fundraiser for hillary clinton in new jersey on monday has had a friendly relationship with chris christie in the past. in 2013 he donated $1 million to the hurricane sandy new jersey relief fund.

let's go to randy waiting in louisiana. the line for independents. your thoughts on chris christie and a bobby jindal. caller: well, he, well, the last caller nailed it. both of them are as sorry as the clintons and bush's. the only people will buy them even considering is rand paul and ted cruz. they both need to get on the ticket. host: it rand paul and ted cruz were to get on the ticket, who

would you want to see us resident and who as vice president? caller: that is a toss up. they sound truthful. i really like rand paul. they threw him under the bus when he was running. they did not give him the time of day. those are good peopl as fare. not need a monarchy. that is a bunch of noveltiazis as far as i'm concerned. host: they put out their lead editorial yesterday about this list is nomination noting that republicans may have to isolate the extremists. if chris christie can spark some soul-searching and the party

like bill clinton did, this will serve a purpose and may establish and as a viable contender in 2020. the washington post and the wall street journal also with editorials about chris christie this morning. joe is in alabama. good morning. caller: chris christie is the best thing in the world. this gives us like 12 or 14 nominees. host: 14 now with two more still to come. caller: 16. the more the better. it will be hard. they will have to spend some

resources. 16 people now? host: perhaps more after that if other will get in. caller: last week donald trump put his name in the hat. they play fire with fire. host: paterson new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i vote chris christie. when he was running against karzai does score and sign -- corzine, new jersey is the highest property taxes in the usa. i am a senior citizen. he raised as twice property taxes. yesterday he did not even touch it. he spent more time out to new jersey been inside new jersey. every word he said was a lie.

they love him. this guy lies everywhere. he is a bully. host: paterson, new jersey. our last call in this first 45 minutes. we will talk to adam who works on the public safety and performance object of pew charitable trusts. later stephen moore will join us on the charitable tax funds. that is up next. we will be right back.

>> the c-span city tour is partnering with our elliott as we travel across the united states and as we learn about the literary life of omaha nebraska. >> only had a relationship in omaha and the united states. you needed to keep your head down and he needed to be aware that you were not going to be served in restaurants.

they used the term social justice. the idea of civil rights was so far removed from the idea of the greater community of omaha that they were operating in a vacuum. a were operating without a net. >> [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, we look to how this was in the omaha area. >> it was founded and signed into law the abraham lincoln. they worked haere charged with

building the railroad. central pacific started on the west coast and was moving east. they met out of utah. fact is really what propels us even farther. we become that point and moving west. >> sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history television on seas and three. host: advent is jerked her of the public safety performance project at the pew charitable trusts. first the numbers. how many people are in thestates.

>> 2.3 million behind ours out of 230 million will. -- adults. 1% of the adult population is locke du while that number increased to myp. -- joedramatic there has been an incredible bipartisan movement to try to turn it around and go the other direction. we reached this back in 2007-2008. they had taken bipartisan votes. we have fallen back down to 110. host: what is the prison system

costing us? guest: caller: we now have $80 billion for the federal system. even adjusting for inflation. what we're seeing happening is people are recognizing that the central driving point behind that increase is that it prisons would go of crime would go down. simple as that. that probably was true for a good bit of the 70's and 80's that we were not punishing adequately coarsening enough of a message. somewhere along there it got very big. we started sleeping in the lower level offenders. there is an incredible senses in the research and political bodies that say this is too much. we are in now at the point of diminishing returns.

putting more people in prison is not going to be less crime in the most cost-effective way. host: a question you work on is if this is so expensive, how do you control costs and ensure vendors are held accountable and public 80's till upheld? -- safety is still upheld? guest: we know so much better today than we did in the 70's when we started building the prison cap. in the 70's and 80's we frankly did not know. we do. we have technologies we did not have before. we have programs that work with offenders to help change their attitudes and behaviors. when you combine these you can cut recidivism by 25% or 30%. policymakers are starting to notice that for lower level offenders there far more

cost-effective ways to handle them. host: adam is with the pew charitable trust. if you want to join this conversation as we are talking about prison reform and sentencing and corrections reform, our phone lines are open. democrats (202) 748-8000 republicans (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002 the numbers are up on the screen if you want to start dialing now. in your report, you talk about how some states have started to lower the numbers of those in prison. what are states doing that the federal government can learn from? guest: they are rolling up their sleeves, digging into the data

and using research and data to drive policy rather than ideology and emotion. that is where we have in the last 20 or 30 years working parties were engaged in a one upmanship battle. there are lots of folks involved in providing intensive 10 assistant to states to help them understand to that week it is they have imprisoned and whether there might be some is less expensive strategies. host: you talk about reforms with states cutting improvement rate and crime rates. texas is one of those sent 2007 who has cut rates by 12% and crime rates down in texas by 21%. explain how texas disappeared host: texas 11 most important

parts of the story. it is texas. nobody thinks that texas is going to do anything soft on crime. what you have in 1987 was 50,000 inmates. in 2070 had hundred 50,000 inmates. they increase by about 5000 inmates a year. in 2007, the economy is going strong. there is conventional wisdom saying that we are seeing so much change because of a budget. about 2007. the economy was not very strong. the legislature says we do not want to build another 15,000 prisons over the netxt three year. they have more promotion officers during courts, residential treatment centers for joint drivers who had been going to regular prison and

several other strategies that tried to bend the curve. the texas prison population has leveled out. recidivism is down by double digits. the crime rate hsas jock don to levels they are not singing since the 1960's. -- has gone down to levels they have not seen since the 1960's. host: when you are trying to use more parole or less people behind bars, i imagine that if and offender did this it brings public opinion against. how do you screen to me sake sure you do not have a re-offender? guest: the technical part of

something called risk needs assessment. we do not have a crystal ball and say whether this person will will not commit a crime. we do have tools backed by data that can give officials and judges much better on an idea of whether or not somebody is high risk or low risk. these tools have felt the parole board make better decisions about who to release. they second part is the public remains in a lock them up and they're away the key mood. our polling has shown repeatedly that that is a false assumption . the public is sick and tired of tough on crime rhetoric. they realize after all this prison building over decades that we're not going to build our way to public see you. when you ask any type of questions along these lines ec

you see 201-1 and 3-1 support even across party lines. they want it to be for the series of violent offenders and lower-level offenders and less expensive alternatives. host: line for democrats. you are up first. caller: what i am concerned about is the correctional institute programs. there used to be a time when the state ran ones that were not as expensive. you did not see as many criminals taking jobs that basically went to the public. how is that interest?

-- addressed? they are utilizing them for the text dollars -- tax dollar.s host: we have about eight or 9% of inmate in private facilities. this number has not grown in the past years. there are legitimate suspicions that private interests have run at the prison population. when you think it is more broadly, there are a lot of ink that intermediate -- things that contributed. you have unions on the other side that have been actively and openly campaigning for increases in the prison population. the central dynamic here is one about politics and being soft on crime.

the good news is that in the past couple of years as more states had taken the texas story and followed that lead and said we can do something stupid lower-level offenders and alternatives --i will give you an example. governor nathan deal in georgia was a champion of significant reform in 2012. he was up for reelection in 2014. he put out a campaign flyer that was not the usual attack ad against his opponent but a flyer touting his leadership on criminal justice read warm and talking about how he made the system more fair. to have a southern republican governor running out that kind of campaign flyer instead of an attack ad is an indication of how this issue has toured.

host: i want to bring in hopes on the special line on those who have had experience in the region -- in the prison system. are you with a deco caller: -- with us deco caller: -- with us? caller: yes i am. i started the take a brother program. i matched the high school boys with youngsters. we had a 142 not repeat rate out of 150. that and early detection, along with jobs -- you have to have jobs. if you tell a person they are getting out of prison, they can't go down a one-way street back to their old friends bet din prison themselves -- that did prison themselves, you have

to educate them. then you have to find the employer on the outside link them up early so they have an incentive to go straight. host: mr. delp -- mr. gelb. guest: for too long, we have thought that you simply should provide services to offenders. offer them this, offer them that and it will work. certainly, education housing services, substance abuse services are critical, but it is also critical to take folks -- old folks at -- hold folks accountable. when you put in positive incentives for compliance, hey if you do what you are supposed to do for a month, you go to treatment and you stay clean then you can earn a month off of your supervision.

that is a very effective way to motivate people to actually take advantage of the services that the caller mentioned. and we also have had a system that has really been focused on catching people when they mess up and say, ok, you didn't go to treatment, so if you do it again, we are going to throw you back in the prison. what we are starting to see his sort of taking advantage of a lot of research that shows that positive reinforcement is much more effective than negative reinforcement. host: is there any estimates of the costs of providing new incentives? is that going to be a new prison expense that can be offset by lowering the numbers of people in prisons? guest: that is exactly the way it works. both in prisons, expanding what is called earned time credits, and the federal legislation that has just been introduced called the safe justice act. it exley takes a lot of these

database the lessons and puts them to work in the federal system. host: a few members of congress are joining on this conversation -- legislation. guest: and they have studied on the task force for a couple of years and look at what states are doing in this area. and included some significant provisions in the safe justice act to regulation allies it, include that inmates, if you participate in programs, you can earn time off your sentences. so that is a time -- incentive for them. and by shortening that length of stay, you save money that you have two then invest in some of these programs, which, by the way, cost a lot less. in the second piece is to provide that same kind of incentive when they are on the street to say if you continue to do what you are supposed to do, then you can earn time off your supervision, as well. host: sandy has a question on

twitter. please give us a list of low-level offensive -- offensives which now includes prison time you like to see suspended. guest: the one commonality that you can really talk about is right where we have just been in this conversation, which is how do you respond to violations of parole. for people who are breaking the rules of their supervision by not reporting or showing up for a treatment session, and in some states, up to two thirds of people going into prison i asked us going there for committing a new crime, they are going back for having messed up on creation -- probation for parole. that is the thing that most dates have been willing to say we had to find a better way to deal with those, folks. beyond that, i think in example from south carolina is really helpful here. you have one of the main

offenses for which people are going to offenses in south carolina was driving with a suspended license. to south carolina's credit here, you can go to prison for 90 days or more, not the usual you're a more like most dates. but nonetheless, i think that is offense that most people think you don't go to prison for. so on a state-by-state basis what has been happening with the justice reinvestment initiative -- saying, let's look at each state and help them sort of understand who these people are and then come up with strategies to make sure that prisons are concentrated on serious, chronic, and violent offenders. host: florida, donald is waiting. donald you are up with adam gelb. caller: hello, this is donald. i am a libertarian voter. i have a couple questions about the prison reform on the low offenders.

the nonviolent offenders. the nonviolent offenders shouldn't be in prison in the first place. they should keep the prisons for the worst of the worst. the ones that do need to be in there. those low-level nonviolent offenders, those are like people with marijuana offenses and other low violent offense, they don't qualify at all. they don't commit any crimes. but in for the, if someone gets caught with weed, you get a year , and that is prison time. and the prisons are overcrowding. i think the whole country -- do you need criminal justice reform. guest: i think the caller taps into the sentiment that is growing across the country that prisons ought to be for serious, chronic, violent offenders. at the same time, i think there

is a bit of a myth out there that prisons -- on both sides of this, you have a good number of folks that think you don't go to prison unless you are, in fact a violent and career criminal. and that a lot of people think the prisons are full of people who are smoking marijuana and got busted and now they are sitting in prison for years. it is really not one extreme or the other. i think there are certainly plenty of people at the lower end of the scale who can be handled in a much more safe and effective way, but this is sort of where the concept of a prison composition index comes in. we shouldn't just be counting the number of inmates and having that be the main barometer of our prison system, but it needs to be accompanied by a sense to what percent of the inmate population thus consist of people who are aquatic and career offenders -- chronic and career offenders? host: can you speak to how

having smallness of marijuana is changing in this country. guest: i think there is an assumption that if you are a low-level marijuana offender, you are going to prison. in most places, not that there aren't plenty of cases where it does happen, but most cases of those do not go to jail, let alone go to prison. in terms of the state prison population, you are looking at about 16%, 17% in for drug offenses of any kind. that includes trafficking and bales, as well as possession. when you look at possession, it is down around 4%. the federal system is very different. the federal system, obviously has a very different role. and the federal system, you have 50% of the population's drug offenders. actually only a slice of those are considered the most serious offenders, the high-level supplies and the traffickers.

what the safe justice act does, along with several other bills that are in the same general direction, say, again, the same concept -- we should be sending serious offenders to prison and making sure that we take advantage of some of the knowledge about how to better handle lower-level offenders. host: in the federal system, you can go to the future double trust fax sheets on these -- fact sheets on these topics. they notice -- note the cost has increased to nearly $7 billion today. we are talking about corrections reform prison reform, sentencing reform, all these topics with adam gelb. don is up next. alexandria, virginia. the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i was calling to ask a question if there was a cost difference between the private prisons and

the state prisons or the federal prisons in terms of cost per inmate. guest: good question. private prison companies is different on different inmate populations in different states. generally, they come in a little bit lower than what the state cost itself would be. however, a major caveat to there, they tend to seek and want to hold only the lowest level inmates. an minimum-security is a lot cheaper to run than medium and maximum security. the private firms tend not to want to run those maximum-security facilities and deal with those much tougher to deal with inmates. so, if you are just for that kind of stand, i think a lot of people heavy lies over the is that privatization may have some other benefits, but in terms of actual cost savings, they haven't typically panned out. host: james on twitter, he

writes, i'm for privatizing prisons as much as of inefficient government functions as is humanly possible, but private prisons is not one of the things that he is for. deborah is waiting, texas, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is -- i have been in the prison system and the -- [indiscernible] all the difference there is in budgeting because i went to prison for 18 months for a little empty, mind you, dime bag of methamphetamine. and what i experienced firsthand is -- [indiscernible] -- not that the drugs didn't do

that but no substantive amount. no dealing going on, just possession of an empty bag in a vehicle that was in my name that i was driving. 18 months out of my life that voided me from any kind of health fund. if you don't have a friend or family member, you don't have anything there. you are thought -- thrown under the bus, and that is it. the whole economy of the state of texas, if you will, on so many levels -- my children were left. and this was an empty bag. and that is just my,. the has to be something done. host: thank you for sharing your story. adam gelb. guest: there is a lot being done about this.

it hasn't gotten anywhere near as far as most people these days think it should, but we have shifted from an attitude where if you broke the law, you go to prison. and when you get out, we are going to give you a bus ticket. and when you get out, basically nothing but the bus ticket and the close under back. and it turns out, that doesn't work very well for public safety. you have to hold them accountable, as we were talking before, for doing the things you are supposed to do. so reentry over the past 10, 15 years has gotten a lot more serious. on the front end as well, and this may be appropriate to their caller -- 's the -- the caller's case. -- but rather are put in systems that include frequent jar testing, referral to treatment services, and then sit and

sanctions. if they don't go to treatment and stay clean. and then the incentives were talking about to try to make sure that if you are going to treatment and you are staying clean, then you can stay out of jail. when it is done well, it works pretty well. everybody from prosecutors and judges to legislators is starting to realize that this is a much more effective and less expensive way to do with these kinds of cases. host: in jacksonville, florida, a republican who has also had experience in the prison system. caller: good morning. i am pretty interested in everything that has been said. i was recently released from a federal prison is an -- prison myself, after serving for almost 11 years. a lot of what mr. gelb is saying is correct, but there is also that is not. it may not be specifically has fax -- his facts, but i'm extra stuck living at a hotel right

now. i am paying a fortune to live there because i have to find a place to live. i'm having a terrible fine -- time trying to find a job. but some of the things i saw over these years are amazing. the mandatory minimums that the federal system mandates, it kind of forces the judges' hands in most cases. i'm hoping to see some reform for that in the future. because so many of these people stuck in the prisons, maybe they sold a crack lock and they are doing 15 to 20 euros. -- years. the waste i saw in the federal system from the federal employees, the financial waste just blew my mind. i couldn't believe. something called in and talked about one of the private prisons. i was left in one of the present -- private prisons for a well.

the attitudes of the staff, it was amazing. i could talk for hours about this. host: hang on the line for just the second and let adam jump in. guest: you touched on mandatory minimums, which is a key part of this debate. there are a number of those in congress right now that attacked the mandatory minimum issue. the safe justice act, which was just introduced last week, takes an interesting approach to this and says we and not going to do an across-the-board cut for all mandatory's, but we are going to say that in order to trigger the mandatory minimums, you have to have a more serious level of conduct. again, putting in this notion that, boy, if you're going to do a lot of time in state or federal prison, you are going to have to be a really serious offender. if you are a lower-level offender, if you have able -- lo w role, nobody is saying for those people you shouldn't be punished, but we are saying that

it just doesn't make sense fiscally for this country. to be paying this much money to lock up that many lower-level offenders. host: christopher, as you are sitting in your hotel room and watching, what kind of program would be most helpful for you right now? caller: you know, mr. gelb talked about spending some $30,000 a year to incarcerate a federal inmate. that $30,000 is -- i mean -- for myself, seeing that money going to programs that would help bring an inmate back into society would be so much more beneficial. when you mention the private prisons, i know that the guards at the private prison were making $11 an hour. the federal guards were working -- making anywhere from $35,000 to $45,000 a year. i never saw them do anything more then count the inmates and locked doors. where that money could be used to help get people back into

society. as i said, i'm so desperate. i wanted job so bad. and jacksonville is a very large city. i will do anything. i to the probation officer i wouldn't care what it is, what shift, what hours, what days yet i'm sitting in a hotel room making phone calls and hunting down a job. that money could go to those types of programs instead. guest: this sentiment and the way he just expressed it are words that you could almost hear coming out of the mouth of -- of any elected official these days. there is such a broad consensus on these points now. you could hear this coming from senator cornyn or senator whitehouse, who have introduced legislation together. or from brenner and scott. this is that the federal level and the state level. there is a real strong

bipartisan consensus that we need to move in this direction. that the way we have been doing things is not smart, not cost-effective. and we connection to have less crime at a lower cost if we did things a smart way. host: is that bipartisan consensus -- has that been replicated at other times in prison reform history? guest: i would say so in a very different way. i worked on capitol hill back in the early 1990's when the big bill -- crime bill passed in 1994. but it was a different kind of bipartisanship. first of all, the climate was much more cordial. but basically what you had was republicans were looking for more prisons and democrats were looking for more prevention programs. in both agreeing on 100,000 more cops. so everybody got something in the crime bill that they were looking for. in the case of today, the bipartisanship is different in that i think there is some real

agreement on the underlying policies. and some recognition that we have overbuilt prisons and that we could actually reduce the prison population by a pretty substantial amount. not only without harming public safety, but by potentially increasing it by investing into programs that would reduce turnover. host: george expresses his frustration, we will build a prison before we build a school. it is crazy. dan is waiting in florida, the line for independents. caller: it is kind of frustrating. i have worked within the system and i have been to rehabilitation, etc. we are all talking about symptoms, not the problems. it all starts with a very nonfunctioning public school that does not prepare people for a job. there is no sense talking about anything unless we talk about prevention. number two 85% of all

incarcerated offenders come from single-parent homes. that is number one. number two, 75% of all incarcerated individuals are drug-related crimes. that is number two. unless you fix those two problems, all the programs, all the after you leave prison situations are not going to work. i volunteered for a prison program transition -- the bottom line is, there is just too much money involved in the whole prison system. guest: the caller makes some very good important points there. and what he is getting at is the overall, what does work your. you can think about that a couple different ways. one is what works for people who have already committed crimes.

we have talked about a lot of those different pieces here. i think it is important to remember though, that crime has come down tremendously over the past 20 years. it really did peak in the early 90's -- early 1990's right around the same time the crime bill was passed. and the assumption has been that, well, crime has been coming down because over that time, we built a lot of prisons. and i think there is question among most researchers that the increase in incarceration did have some impressive impact on the crime rate. but they think it is small. maybe 25% at most of the crime drop as it should be civil to increased prisons. so that leaves 75% at least maybe as much as 90%, that has come from things that are not related to prison building. as a fascinating series of other possibilities, including increased police and private security and better policing. including things like electronic benefit transfer is so that

people don't have so much cash lying around. things like telecommuting and people being at home during the day more so the harms -- homes are harder to burglarize. -- this assumption that just how may people we haven't prison or not is going to be what determines the crime rate. host: we talked about some state examples of states that have been able to lower the number of people in the prison systems and crime rates in their states. since reforms in 2008 in rhode island, they have lowered their prison system rate by 70%, crime rates down by 13%. south carolina, reforms in 2010 the numbers in prisons have come down 9%, crime rates have come down 8%. kentucky since 2011 has lowered their rate by 3% and crime rate down by 13%. if you never see can check out

from the public safety performance project. we have a few more minutes with adam gelb. no walking, wisconsin, chester good morning. the line for democrats. caller: good morning. one thing i haven't heard mentioned is the element of race. in wisconsin which incarcerates blacks at a rate higher than any state in the union, but only has out of 5 million people probably 255,000 blacks total. something isn't quite right in that. i worked in the prisons as a counselor alcohol and drugs anger management, so on and so forth. i have also worked in the community-based residential facilities contracted to the doj.

all the clients are basically black. especially those repeat offenders that are sent to the community based situations for counseling on marijuana charges. they have smoked while on parole. number one, that is ridiculous. number two, it is a rip off of the taxpayers. i have never seen any evidence of measured outcome to see if the taxpayers are benefiting from this. host: mr. gelb, i will let you jump in. guest: we have seen a lot of bipartisanship for a lot of reasons. race is certainly one of them. there are enormous disparities. we calculated a few years ago that the average lifetime likelihood of an african-american male going to prison sometime in a lifetime was one in three. he talked about one in 100

adults being locked up in this country for african -- country, for african americans, it is one in nine. so for a lot of people, it is a big motivation to deal with this issue. to reduce those disparities. the good news is that some of the states were just mentioning here experiencing both crime and incarceration drops are actually starting to see some results in this area. georgia and north carolina, which have both done reforms, in georgia since 2012 the prison admissions for white inmates has not changed at all, but for black inmates, it has dropped 11%. that is a state that the started to take out some of these lower-level drug offenders from prison and it is having a benefits that is disproportionate to african-americans. north carolina also across the

board, the prison admissions have gone down. for blacks, down 26%, and for hispanics, down 37%. and for connecticut, the numbers there are 17% drop in the prison population overall, 21% jump for blacks and 23% drop for hispanics. so when states are engaging in reform, they are not necessarily saying hey, we want to put in specific provisions that have some race aspect to them, but since minorities do tend to be disproportionately incarcerated for lower-level offenses, when you move some of those lower-level offenses out of the prison system, the benefits are disproportionate to them. host: let's go to eric in new york, good morning to you. caller: good morning, gentlemen. mr. gelb, you just a few minutes ago noted the basis for my call. i have been on hold for about

half hour and got lucky, but he had noted how some states have up to a two thirds rate of their incarceration coming from supervision things like probation. and my question arises out of the legitimacy of those. where the system is designed to have a career element in it that is based on a batting averages and there is an incentive for these people to rack up incarceration cases from their probation cases. i actually experienced it directly. i had been on probation years ago and i got a violation filed against me over a single drug test. they sought to incarcerated me for seven years. the lucky thing for me is that i had been prophylactically testing my own blood. and they didn't know that. when we got to the point in the dod proceedings -- doj proceedings, -- i have been

litigating this for seven years but when it happened eight years ago, i didn't know. i just found out a few months ago that the probation officer and the assistant prosecutor they had requested and had it granted by the judge to clear the courtroom and close it for my hearing. that was an adult gop case. it did not involve any witnesses. nobody's privacy had been protected. it was over a single allegation of a positive drug test result and i was looking to get it on the public record that this private for-profit laboratory was performing only the preliminary reading, which had a range of 60 percent to 90% performance rate in the preliminary. they were skipping the confirmation scheme -- stage and then submitting it to the court. and that is the basis of the suit. i would encourage you to look it up. host: thoughts on eric's experience?

guest: there are a couple aspects here -- drug testing has gotten much more sophisticated, more accurate, and quick. and that is a good thing. obviously, they can be things that can go wrong and it's housing them a have been in this particular case. the overall point, though, is a sound one, which is that we should not be treating these technical violations in the way that we have overtime. the way that the system has been set up and run violates everything we know about how to shape behavior, which is that you need to set a clear set of rules that is a short sets, not a long list of 15 things that you can or can't do that either you or i could keep up with the course of our daily lives. but three or four things that are important, go to treatment, and stay clean. if you do those things, you are going to earn your way off of supervision. if you don't, there is going to be a swift, certain, and also

fair punishment. one of the few things in this area that has -- which is a wood screws up -- which is wait till someone screws up and test dirty, and that at some arbitrary point say, ok, that is enough, you are going back to prison. that is delayed and uncertain and not what psychologists or anybody would tell you of how to change someone's behavior. you have to response then and you have to respond fairly. when we do that, we see that we can cut rearrest rates by more than 50%. there is a program often quite started by a former federal prosecutor called hawaii hope in the randomized trials of that has shown you can get those kind of results. in that program is taking off in jurisdictions around the

country. host: dolores has been waiting on a line for democrats, portland, oregon. can you make your question quick? caller: yes. i am really enjoying this conversation. and i'm listening to mr. gelb and i'm having a problem with understanding his reasoning of the approach to, you know, handling people. first off, he district -- just keeps repeating all the facts that the minorities are, you know, victims of racism. then the gentleman who called earlier and said there was too much money -- it is just like when we look out on society and you see how as a result of the prison system and the fear that whites have -- you know -- they

want to feel safe so they go out and they incarcerate all people that, you know, people of color. host: we want to give adam gelb a chance to respond. guest: i think that attitude is changing. it has been there, it has been a driving force between policy for a long time, but i think state after state that we have talked about from texas to georgia and north carolina to connecticut over to utah, which just passed a video package of the forest, so the coder, idaho, nebraska, alabama just became when the most recent states to pass a major package of reforms. and these are not, in most cases, close votes. we totaled up, actually, in terms of the major reinvestment packages and we are looking at over 5000 votes in favor of these packages and less than 500 votes against them. so these are nine to one votes often unanimous, and state

legislatures around the country saying we have to change this. we have to go in a different direction. and we are hopeful that these lessons from these states have never really spun up into congress could and we are seeing more and more discussion about taking the lessons from the states, applying them to the federal system, and that is what this one though we have been talking about represents. it takes some of the state lessons and applies them to the federal system and tries to make sure that the federal prison system is focused on serious chronic violent offenders. and they do a better job of the entry and check to make sure that we stop the cycle. host: adam gelb -- it ispewtrust.org. appreciate your time this morning. up next, we will be joined by stephen moore, talking about the various tax plans offered by various contenders.

and later, after a seven-day extension in the iran nuclear deal negotiations, we will open up our phones to discuss whether the united states can and should trust iran to keep its side up in any nuclear agreement. we will be right back. >> here are a few of our future programs for the three-day holiday weekend. on c-span, friday night at 8:00 eastern, radio personalities and executives at the annual talkers magazine conference in new york. saturday night at 8:00, and interview with arthur sulzberger junior.

on the future of the times. and sunday night at 9:30 eastern, members of the church committee, former vice president walter mondale, and former senator gary hart, on their groundbreaking efforts to reform the intelligence community. on booktv," friday night at a 10:00 eastern, art and ford on how the increasing use of artificial intelligence could make good jobs obsolete. saturday night at 10:00, on why the bill of rights was created as a debate it spurred. and sunday, live at noon, join our three hour conversation with best-selling officer peter schweitzer. he has written over a dozen books, including "extortion." and on "american history tv" friday evening at 6:30, the 70th anniversary of the united

nations. with keynote speakers nancy pelosi and you and secretary-general -- saturday night at 8:00, a brooklyn college classroom lecture on the revolutionary war and how individual personalities, supplies, and timing often influence the outcomes of major battles. and saturday at 4:00, a look back at the 1960's film featuring the actor joe brown. get out complete schedule at c-span.org. -- our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> washington journal" continues. host: steve moore is back at our desk. he is an economic expert whose advice has been much in demand i republican leaders, especially those seeking the 2016 republican presidential nomination. we want to start with your

recent piece in the "national review," where you write that president reagan's tax plans have been wrestled as the campaigns get under, even by some republicans. guest: good to be with you john. and thanks to c-span. well, you are right, his tax plans that were put into place in the 1980's -- hillary calls it the federal trickle-down economics, that also some on the right are wondering what was it that ronald reagan really wanted to do in terms of changing taxes? it is my believe, two things, first of all, when ronald reagan entered office, the highest income tax rate was 70%. that is very high tax rate. for every additional dollar you earn $.70 by definition with the government and you only got to keep $.30. people like jack cap and the "wall street journal" editorial

board -- people want investing and people will working less because taxes were so high. when reagan left office, the highest rate went down 28%. over that time, the share of taxes paid by the rich actually increased. so this goes by the way of john f. kennedy who said if you are more revenue, cut the tax rates, don't raise them. and i just had to clarify that. he also believed that by cutting tax rates, you could make the economy grow faster. obviously, that happened big-time in the 1980's. host: what would be your advice to republican candidates when the democrats say republicans are too focused on cutting taxes for the wealthiest americans? guest: that is the charge, so that is the charge they will make over and over again. let's talk about who will the americans are.

those are people who own and operate and invest in small businesses. if you want jobs in this country, you need small businesses. and if you put more money into those businesses, it is pretty self-evident that businesses will be able to hire more workers. i think republicans have to connect those dots that this isn't about giving warren buffett more money, it is about helping small businesses keep more of their own money so they can invest more in equipment and hire more workers. i think that is the case the republicans have to make. you look throughout history the 1920's when tax rates were cut, the economy boomed. i mentioned kennedy in the 1960's. that was a huge, huge boom to the economy in the 1960's. aunt i would even tell hillary clinton that your husband, or he would -- was president, he cut taxes, too. so i think the

history is on the side of those who cut taxes. i don't think anybody is saying -- we have to address also to help with this failing economy you have to this is the spec is the economy, was the system monetary policies, and all these with something to the effect is our one big component. host: and if our viewers want to join in on the conversation, phone lines are open. we are (202) 748-8000 for talking a democrat -- we are (202) 748-8000 for talking with you more. -- you have a formal role with any of the campaigns right now? guest: so, i have been working the last year informally, not on his payroll or anything, what

with rand paul. he is just a fascinating political figure in a think you'll make a big market this race. the kind of libertarian wing of the republican party, which is what he percent to 25% of the republican electorate. and we put this plan together, we call it the flat and fair tax because it has a flat income tax of 14%. after you make $50,000 of income. your first $50,000 would be tax-free. then on the business side, it is sort of a consumption tax. this would pay essentially a 14.5% consumption tax. and we think this would be rocket fuel for the economy. host: let's let rand paul introduce his own plan. here's a video he put out about the fair and hot taxpayer. [video clip] >> a tax cut for every single american, and the guy with the most lawyers and accountants doesn't matter. you do. my plan will cut taxes for

everyone. it will end corporate welfare and special tax breaks. it will create jobs and it will get the irs out of your life. it is the first part of my plan to defeat the washington machine. this will shake up washington and wall street, no doubt, but i'm not running for their approval. i am running to take our government back. with this plan, it starts today. host: just part of the video of rand paul introducing his fair and flat tax plan. steve moore helped, but that plan. before we get the calls, just some response that has come up about the fair and flat tax plan. dean clancy writes, among the issues that he has with the fair and flat tax plan is that the plan preserves a surprising array of the post and exemptions, including charitable deductions, child credit, the earned income credit, and the

tax exclusion for workplace health benefits. retaining these may seem politically prudent, but is also destroys the plan's simplicity. guest: look, there are thousands of loopholes in the tax system. and we do preserve about four or five of them. and i did want to keep in and income tax credit for low income people who are working. the same thing with charitable. if people make contributions to a charity, the senator believes that to be something that is allowed. but everything else, all of the other thousands of loopholes are gotten rid of. that, by the way, i think is one of the big attractions of this. you just played that tape of senator paul. i think the way to sell this plan to america is to say, look, all the special interest provisions, they were put into effect because of lobbyists because of who has the most

political muscle in washington. now we have a tax system that is a disgrace. it does not work for america. some businesses pay nothing some businesses have to pay 35%. if you want to take power away from washington and restore power to mainstream america take away the power of the structure, which is the tax system. host: let's bring our viewers in. deborah is up first, the line for democrats. caller: good morning. hi. i am calling just because i have been a tax lawyer for four years. doing namely estate planning. i have worked for dozens of wealthy people, many small business owners, and i never met one of them that got up in the morning and work any less hard because the tax rates were up the tax rates are down, or more hard. the taxes were just not a factor. they are motivated by other things and, in fact, one of them told me he would like democrats to be an office because at least he made money under democrats.

he didn't mind paying taxes if he was making money, but he would prefer to make money. i think the motivation is, can you sell your products? guest: taxes matter, too obviously, so if you are texting somebody at 60% or 70%, what happens is because of all these loopholes, as you know, you have been a tax lawyer, you essentially shift resources and investment from the kind of marketplace to what the government is hoping you invest in. we have the most amazingly ridiculous things in the tax code. you can get tax cuts for investing in wind mills and things like that. get rid of that. get rid of all the loopholes and make it really simple. cut those rates down as low as possible. by the way, the estate tax is one of the most evil taxes of all because people have worked their whole life, people like my father who is 92-year-old -- 92

years old but now the government is going to come along and take half of that away from him when he dies? and not allow that to be passed on to his children. so there are all sorts of -- and by the way, rand paul pot tax system -- rand paul's tax system would get rid of the double taxation. host: the line for republicans new hampshire, kyle is waiting. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is -- back in the 1950's when the high rate was 91%, we had the biggest economic expansion. and because of the high rate, it's made more sense to reinvest your money back into the business and have the government subsidize 91% of it. and it made more sense because

they were more inclined to pay their help more money because it was tax deductible and they would rather give it to the help than the government. so why shouldn't we go back to a high rate? and if you look at how much the corporate people pay in taxes, they paid 700, while working people on income tax paid $1.2 trillion. plus social security paid another $1 trillion. guest: just one point of interest is that under the rand paul affect, there is no payroll tax. the payroll tax is eliminated. when you ask about the issue of fairness, working-class people get a huge tax break under his plan because let's say you make $40,000 of income, you are going to get a $3000 tax cuts on the payroll. i don't think anyone really thinks that we should go back to a 90% tax rate, although bernie sanders may think that.

if we had a 90% tax rate, the investment capital of this country would flee out of the united states and it would go to other places. the last two callers have sort of suggested that it doesn't matter, and the reason i think that is wrong is look at what has happened with our corporate taxes. we have the highest corporate tax of anybody that we compete within the world. what is happening is companies like good king and met tronics and other major fortune -- med tronics and other major fortune 500 companies are moving to other countries. under this plan, we reverse that. one of the things that people who are concerned about the slow economy and unemployment should find very attractive about this plan is if we put into place a 14.5% flat tax, could you imagine how much capital -- we would just soak up capital from all over the world.

they would locate in the united states. that means jobs for americans. in other words, this is a tax plan that will in swiss jobs to the united states, rather than what we have done in the last 50 years. host: we are talking with steve moore, a visiting fellow. he is also the subject of this piece from earlier this year -- the ruling of a washington wonk. behind the scenes, every presidential candidate is fighting over a small pool of advisors. he is here taking your calls. julian is waiting in massachusetts. the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. given the rather heavy concentration of wealth at the moment in the top 1% of the population and also given that george h.w. bush, a well-known republican president acknowledges the pragmatic decision why is it part of the

republican platform right now to lower taxes? guest: well, you mentioned george h w bush. he did raise taxes and that is why he lost the election in 1992. not very advisable to raise taxes if you want tuesday in power. that event changed history i think in a way that was very negative for the republicans. the economic point is this. we are -- this is a global economy. we just saw this trade deal past -- pass. we have to compete against every country in the world. if you want to do that, we need a world-class tech system that creates jobs for americans. i don't think there's anyone on the planet that would look at our tax system today and all the loopholes and the incredible power of the lobbyists and say this is a really good tax system. no, we should bring it up, start over, and create something really simple that great jobs

for americans. host: truth to power wants to talk history. reagan raised taxes many times. i know, i paid them. guest: he did three or four times, but overall, the taxes were lower. when reagan came in, the first thing he did was that income taxes 25% to 35% across the board. and then we reformed the entire tax system. got the tax rate down to 50% and 28%. by the way i would say that that 1986 tax act, which cut the top tax rate to 20%, you will not believe this, but it is true , that passed 97-3 in the united states senate. so there was a very star consensus. even people like bill bradley said, yeah, we have to do this. the one thing that concerns me is the democrats don't team to be interested in this issue anymore. they don't seem to want to fix the tax system.

they just want to keep raising rates, which i think would be very negative for the country. host: you say we, talking about president reagan, research director on privatization has held several different roles including how to president -- including founder and president. caller: out of a -- caller: morning on the that taxes are complicated. i have been looking at them since 1975. and so often, they change from year to year. which does make it difficult. i know that some people are talking about flat taxes. maybe that might help.

and or the loopholes, but a taxes attacks. if it is taxed, then people will understand that this is attacks. so in general, people will pay that tax. but time to do change. what my real question is this. why don't we start thinking about tax system compared to health care? if we distribute the health care of the entire company, for example if those 34 governors would take on the health care, that will level out the health care system. also, it would grow companies because of companies have employers that they can hire, the companies can grow. host: steve moore, on the health care system. guest: it is a great question because the health care system in united states has sort of revolved around the tax code.

and what you are going to be hearing about the latest of this particular topic of rand paul's flat tax, but as we think about alternatives to obamacare, then what do we -- -- what do we -- what we put in place of obamacare? and without legacy is a system where whether you are individual tax father or an employee, you get a tax break to buy health insurance. that way, people wouldn't have to get health insurance themselves. if you buy this to the employer, it is tax deductible. so there are also to problems. but we keep changing the tech system every year. it is exactly right. that is exec or what is wrong. there was something like 500 different changes in the tax code in the last five or six years. congress keeps tinkering with this. if you put in place something

like the flat tax, it is done it is over. we don't have to tinker with it anymore. you don't put -- hopefully, i'm being hopeful here, but we have a system that can stay in place for 20 or 30 years. nobody would want to be on the ways and means committee because there is nothing to buy or sell. why do you think so many of these members of congress want to be on the tax writing committee? the cousin that is -- the -- -- because that is how they get lobbyists. host: good morning, mike. caller: good morning. i want to put a couple things out that i think the gentleman is living out and i think a rather important. one of them is that every time a president presided over the reduction of tax rates, not only did it left the country out of a recession, but it also created money for the treasury.

it is kind of counterintuitive, but cutting tax rates creates so much more economic activity because the investing class is willing to put capital at risk of loss in business ventures to a much greater extent. and what creates jobs really is the fact that people are willing to put their money at a risk of loss and ventures. when more businesses are being either bolstered or founded because people are willing to put their money at risk of loss because they think that when they succeed, they are going to keep more of what the investment pays them back, you can only expands the economy. the second thing i want to point out -- i remember the articles that were written during the 1990's when the tax rates have been cut -- excuse me, during the bush administration when the tax rates have been cut and the experts were writing in places

like the "new york times" how surprised they were an astounded that the rich were paying more taxes than ever before because the tax rates had been lowered. they couldn't understand it. host: steve moore, i will let you jump in. guest: that is the point of my "national review" article. every time tax rates have come down, we have actually gotten more growth in the economy. and as this gentleman points out, the share of taxes paid by the rich has actually increased. john f. kennedy said this very eloquently. he said this in, i think, late in 1962 that it is a paradoxical truth that when tax rates are too high, tax revenues are too low. he said the surest winter raise the revenues for the treasury is to cut the tax rates now. that is absolutely true. it is 250 years ago and it is still true today. when the top tax rate was 70% in this country in 1980, the

richest 1% pay 90%. when the tax rate was cut to 20%, the richest 1%. almost 30%. today, they pay almost 40%. when you have 1% of the population paying 40% of the income tax, that is a pretty progressive tax system. but i believe they pay almost more under this type of flat text we are talking about. host: and as you point viewers to that july addition, -- if our viewers want to read the full piece there. lansing, michigan, the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. we at talk? good morning. thank you for letting me speak on your program. i heard you state that talking

point, the republican talking point earlier that republicans are committed to the improvement of conditions that will benefit small businesses. if there is such a love for small businesses over corporations, why is it that subsidies are available to corporations but not too small businesses. bailouts are available to corporations but not small businesses. no big contracts are available to small businesses. grants to cover mergers are available to corporations, but not small businesses. corporations are getting the title, job providers. host: we got your point. guest: i think he is exactly right. i work with rand paul and another faction to eliminate corporate welfare.

you're going to have to look at rand paul very closely. he wants to eliminate all the special interest favors and all the programs that benefit corporations and not small businesses. we need to create an equal playing field. a good example is the program called the export import plan. the big fortune 500 companies -- here is the interesting things. republicans want to get rid of that corporate welfare program. republicans and democrats near to go after corporate welfare. we could save $100 billion a year. we have to give corporate america half the dole. i am 100% with you. we did have been bailouts of insurance companies and banks and i think it was a big mistake. host: you mention the export

income bank expiration, we will be talking about that in our next segment. we will be talking about that with a washington post reporter. read is waiting in the union washington. caller: good morning. thank you c-span. i will have a quick couple of comments. i am a libertarian like you are. every time you're on air, i agree with you. i wish the media would explain this, and rand paul would win the election if they did because i am for that. to point out the circle that crosses over between liberals and republicans. i wanted to touch on that. if he could get that point across, to show liberals on the left, like the michigan caller who i agree with that 100%. it needs to be emphasized. i like to say that people need

to understand that if you reduce corporate tax to almost nothing corporations in america would have a choice. for every two dollars that are produced, one dollar has to go to wages. if they could reduce corporate tax to nothing, the government would realize that the payroll taxes that is offset from that money it would be realized in payroll taxes. it would be produced organically. organically, corporations would have to pay more for every worker. that is my comment. guest: i think that is right. one of the things that is attractive about rand paul is that he is, i am a republican, i want to see the robins win in 2016, rand paul appeals to a

base that public's don't normally win. he is treated like a rock star at college campuses. he believes in civil liberties. he wants to create jobs. he does very well with blacks and hispanics. and to those of the people that if they are going to win the elections, they have to bring those voters to the republican party. i would say this, if republicans want to win this election, if we are going to turn this country around we have technology fact that what we have done for the last 8-10 years isn't working. that is the last couple of bush years, but also this recovery. this has been a healthy recovery for americans but we have less income today than when the recovery started. president obama is saying hello

the economy is doing, and people are saying, what economy is he talking about? that is the issue that applicants have to address. host: we have talked about rand paul quite a bit. what other republican candidates are you advising? guest: -- he has become a superstar on the stage. i started an organization called the committee to unleash prosperity with steve forbes. we're trying to educate candidates. one of the policies we have to put in place to get this economy moving at double the rate of growth we have now. by the way we could do that. this economy could be growing twice as fast. we could be creating twice as many jobs. we have the right monetary policy if you put them in the growth direction, you will see

that i am an optimist about the u.s. economy. we have a president who seems to think that -- hillary clinton runs around the country and says businesses don't create jobs. that's negativity has an impact on the way the economy performs. we need a president who wants our businesses to succeed. i'm not so sure that we have that. host: one more question. do you expect to take a formal role with one campaign? guest: i may do that. i have been working so closely with rand paul, i think he is a superstar. i worked with scott walker, and i think marco rubio has a lot going for him. i meeting in a couple of weeks with jeb bush. it is a wide-open open field right now for the republicans. i don't have a clue who the

republican nominee is going to be. host: miriam in alstom, virginia. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the double taxation that republicans and you have just talked about on estate tax. i do not understand it. i have tried to understand your perspective and i don't get it, because if i could get $10 million from inheritance and put it in the stock market and over the years, it makes another $10 million, and i only take out $1 million to live on because i have another job, that is $9 million. when i pass it onto my children, it is never going to have been taxed one bit. so how does that double tax work with a person who gets a paycheck every week or month they will be paying taxes every single time. a rich person who has led money making money, that is not being

taxed twice. they are getting off scott free. guest: that is a great question. let's say you have a person who has made a fortune. let's say they have $10 million. they have it through their business. let's say they are 70 years old. one option is to spend every penny. live lavishly, champagne for dinner, and died broke. if you do that, the $10 million you pay no taxes on it. but i think the righteous thing to do good for families and the economy is to continue to save and reinvest that money in the business. if you do that, then the government will take as much as 50% of that away from you. that is when the double taxation comes into it.

this limit makes a very important point. we ought to tax that a state the money that is passed on, at the capital gains rate. but don't tax it at 45% of the estate tax, because that takes it away. do you how much money we get from the estate tax every year? it is an inconsequential tax. if we got rid of it, we would hardly miss it. it raises so little money. but the army of people who do estate tax planning and lawyers, it is just a dumb tax. host: wayne is on from the line from the republicans. caller: how do you do? i would like to have your views on the value of the tax, maybe a liberating -- maybe illuminating

the 52 pages of tax regulations. i know mr. huckabee is talking about fair tax, and i'm in a -- i am aware that the best tax except it is a hidden tax, it can be escalated without the public knowing about it. granted, had we started that thing, you would have to have that embedded in the constitution as it could increase over a percentage. guest: you have the story exactly right. on the side of the rand paul tax plan, it is essentially -- host: the 14%? guest: right. a business takes its receipts

and the docs the expenses, computers, etc.. and they pay the tax on the difference. and as it goes through the business cycle, they pay that back. here is one element of the tax that people find interesting. one of the things that is very attractive about the rand paul business tax under our current system, we tax will be export, but we don't tax for import. it is the stupidest system ever devised. we basically encourage corporations to move abroad. let's a toyota builds a car in tokyo. and it brings that car into the united states to sell here. as soon as it hits the border, it would hit a 14.5% tax to come into the united states. now, let's take the car built by general motors in indiana that

is sold in japan, there is no tax. so we are not going to tax the things we sell abroad, but if you want to bring in something from outside, it is a consumption tax. imagine how many more manufacturing jobs are you a be able to have here in the united states. i think rand paul should be going to the unions and saying that this is going to be creating a lot more jobs here because it gives american manufacturers an advantage over those other companies they compete with in china and mexico. so if someone is worried about jobs in the united states, take a close look at the rand paul plan. host: stephen moore held several months to design that plan. he is with us for the next few minutes. we have packed on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to ask how this revised tax plan will affect the

huge debts that we need to pay down. guest: that is a great point. rand paul believes we can cut government spending and taxes at the same time. he thinks american families deserve a tax cut. we looked at a lot of models and asked what happens to the economy if we put this in place. and what we found, this was the tax on nation, it is a nonpartisan organization, they found that this would be like rocket fuel for the economy. over 10 years, the economy would be 10% larger if we put it in place. so if we do that, you have a much bigger economy, more people working, businesses making more money, less people on welfare the debt starts to fall. you have fewer welfare expenditures.

and you have more people paying taxes. so that is the best way to bring the deaths down in my opinion. grow the economy much more quickly and by the way, again this happened in the 1960's and the 1920's. even when clinton cut the tax plan. we had a huge revenue increase. host: will in california, line for independents. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. first of all sir the tax rate for the rich is 34.5%. i have heard warned buffett and mitt romney say that they pay somewhere around 0%-14%. how much does wall street make every day? not a year. every day? if you add that up, take the

percentage between a 40%-30 4%. that is 20%. so the 20% that they are not paying, that is where all the money is. if you do the math on it. if we would just make wall street pay their fair share we wouldn't have any problem. reduce to five years, you have more money than you could shake a stick at. you could pay for everything and you could have jobs. host: do the math for us. guest: this is a great point. at the heritage foundation we have done a lot of analysis of what people want from the tax system. people want jobs and fairness. that is the number one thing that people want associated with the tax system. here is the way that the tax should appeal to people. right now, we have a system that has so many loopholes and special interest favors, that

you and i could have the same income and you could pay 3-4 times more than me and taxes. if we get rid of the loopholes and the credits, and everybody has to pay their fair share, what we found is that the biggest adduction, who takes advantage of it? it is the rich people. the top 1% gets half of the deductions. if you get rid of them, there is nowhere for warren buffett or bill gates or lebron james to shield their income. there will be no where to put it, no loophole to put it in to protect it. there are companies that don't pay tax who are profitable. that is not fair. why? because they use windmills and all this other stuff. if you want them to pay their fair share, take a look at this

plan. host: stan from kentucky, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. he just covered what i was going to say. the top 1% has 90% of the wealth but isn't paying that amount in taxes. but i am afraid that this hurts the poor more than the wealthy. guest: here is why i would disagree. if you are a family of four and you make less than $50,000 a year or less, you pay zero income tax. so the tax only starts after $50,000 of income. the tax plan a limited the payroll tax. there is no 7.5% that is deducted from a worker's salary. so if you are making $40,000 a year and are just getting by,

you have 7.5% that is taken out of your paycheck. that is no longer there, that is a big pay increase for the average american. so those two things make it beneficial for people with low incomes. the most important way to help poor people or middle-class people is to make the economy grow faster. create better paying jobs for americans. americans want to work high paying jobs. the problem isn't that there aren't enough jobs, there aren't, but we are not creating the high paying jobs that we used to create. if you have a tax system like this you will see wages rise at a more rapid rate than they are now. host: i want to ask you about the club for growth that you helped found. what role do you expect the club to play in the 2016 election? do you think it will endorse in

the 2016 race? guest: you know, that will be interesting. i think they will play a useful role helping identify republican voters, which of these 14-how many candidates are there now? what these candidates are for. who is for free trade? who is for getting rid of regulations? republican voters are going to have to do a lot of compare and contrast. i will just say this on the way out, i believe this sincerely. the american economy is ready to explode. we are ready for one of the biggest booms we have ever seen and the country's history. we just had to the policies right and a president who wants businesses to succeed.

my old boss, mitt romney, he used to say that policies love jobs but they hate employers. we need to regard businesses not as enemies that as the engines of growth. the entrepreneurs in this country who make our economy work, this plan rewards those countries -- those companies. host: stephen moore, you can follow him on twitter. thank you very much. guest: thank you. host: we will open our phones up to whether the united states should trust iran in nuclear negotiations? we will be right back. ♪

>> like many of us, the first families like vacation time. and a good read can be the for effect -- the perfect companion. what one better than peers into the personal life of all the first ladies in history. first ladies. inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived scrutiny of the white house. a great summertime read. available from public affairs as an e-book. available at your favorite bookstore or an online bookseller. >> this summer, booktv will cover book festivals will cover book fairs. in the middle of july we are live at the harlem book fair.

we will be live with their panel discussions. at the beginning of september we are live from the nation's capital from the mid--- the national book festival. washington journal continues. host: in our last 40 minutes of the washington journal today our phone lines are open to talk about the ongoing iranian nuclear negotiations. here are the headlines today. in the washington times, the new talks extension increases doubts for the iranian deal. president obama was asked in his press conference yesterday with the president of brazil about the ongoing iranian negotiations.

>> with respect to the larger issue, whether i respect the iranian regime? as i have said before, there are deep-seated disagreements, and divisions, between the united states and iran. those are not going to go away overnight. the goal of the nuclear negotiations is not to rely on trust, but to set up a verifiable mechanism where we are cutting off the pathways for ron -- four iran to obtain a weapon. host: -- brought up the issue of trust in a tweet yesterday. i recognize our negotiations as trustworthy, committed, brave and faithful.

congress is weighing in on the extension of the nuclear negotiations. the arkansas from -- the senator from arkansas, tom cotton, he said that the present of united states should use this extra time wisely. you must be strong and accept nothing less than full illumination of iran's nuclear weaponry. -- rights imagine iran's foreign-policy debate if they thought they were untouchable with a nuclear arsenal. we must prevent a nuclear iran. david perdue said that if iran is not serious about reaching a deal, we could not continue to reward bad behavior. richard hudson said that the potus's desperate into reach any deal has led to the most dangerous concessions that will turn the most brutal nation into a -- again, here is the story

that the washington times says. while most analysts say that the deal to curse hail iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanction relief remains in reach, the last-minute extension triggered fresh speculation that iran possible -- iran's leaders may be dragging out the talks for as long as the u.s. and its negotiating will allow. again, the question is whether the united states should trust iran in the nuclear negotiations. call (202) 737-0001 for democrats, (202) 737-0002 for republicans, and (202) 628-0205 for independents. we will begin with susan in kingston, illinois. caller: hi.

i wouldn't let the gop members to talk to iran. they are trying to control everything here. if you're trying to control somebody's religion, which they do over here. the republicans are too pushy with their christianity, and i wouldn't want them to, i wouldn't want other people to have to deal with that. host: how do you feel about john kerry and the head of the department of energy also working on these negotiations as well? caller: i like john kerry. anybody who is for the environment should be working on the deal. i don't care if climate change is real or not, that doesn't mean we can't clean up the earth and to better for our kids. host: we are getting your thoughts on the ongoing nuclear

negotiations. it was extended yesterday by seven days. up next is arthur. caller: good morning. any president who would consider trusting the iranians as they keep shouting out "death to america," it makes no sense to me. there must be something at play for the president to take this initiative. he is giving away the shop to give power to people who want to kill us. something that we just don't see right now. i don't understand that it is so unreasonable to trust the arabians. after ask myself why the president would take such great risks to the american people?

it makes no sense. host: yesterday at the press conference, the president talked about what he would and wouldn't do over the course of the ongoing negotiations. what it would take for him to walk away from the negotiations. >> the framework agreement that was established is one that if implemented effectively and codified properly, it would achieve my goal. for iran to not obtain a nuclear weapon. there has been a lot of talk on the other side. about whether it -- whether they can divide boy -- about whether they can't abide by it. if not, that will be a problem. i will walk away from the negotiations if it is a bad

deal. if we can't provide assurances that the pathways for iran obtaining a nuclear weapon or closed, if we can't verify that if the inspections are in adequate, then we are not going to get a deal. we have been very clear to their government about that. host: we are getting our viewers thoughts in the last 30 minutes of washington journal. should the united states trust iran? up next, we have naomi from louisiana. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: yes, i am calling to say that we should at least trust

because like you said, if it is not a good deal, he will walk away. that is what we should honor. thank you. host: that is naomi and louisiana. we want to step away for one second to talk about the export -import bank. it lost its ability to extend loans last night. we will be talking about what that means -- of the washington post. he is a reporter at the washington post . mike, the charter has expired. explain that in technical terms. caller: the last 81 years, the import-export bank of united states has existed for one purpose. to help american companies sell goods overseas. what it does is provide loans.

more importantly, loan guarantees and lines of credits to companies -- excuse me to purchasers of goods that are being made by american companies. the argument for many years is that the risky transaction fees are special types of transactions that need special government guarantees that the private sector will step in and help finance. and for 80 years this was -- the agency was reauthorize and expanded and basically did its job without much controversy. in recent years what we have seen is that conservatives have seized upon the export-import bank and its business. and some of its more question will business practices and most of this resolves around the topical -- philosophical idea that if the free market, if the

private sector banks are not willing to extend credit to support these companies, then what role does the government have? that is a sentiment that really started developing for five years ago -- four or five years ago. there was some controversy the last and they were up for reauthorization in 2012 but it was still reauthorize quite easily with a very wide margin in both houses. in the last couple of years some of the more active conservative -- more active conservative action groups, citizens united, have really united around this as a opportunity to send a message that to put conservative people in action. what we have seen is that this

deadline has approached on june 30 for the bank's charter. you've seen a healthy split in the republican party between the conservatives who believe that the free market should be the only players in this round -- realm, -- to keep americans competitive abroad. they created gridlock to the point that you even saw split among republican leaders in congress where no action was taken and we have elapsed today. -- have the laps today it the bank is not going away. it will continue to service loans it has already made in the realm of $110 billion. it will continue and they will

continue to do that and there are no plans for layoffs. host: this is not specifically a shutdown of the bank? guest: i'm sorry? host: this was not technically a shutdown of the import-export bank? guest: it means they cannot extend so credit and loan guarantees. that the bank has put out itself . it indicates there almost 200 transactions somewhere north of $9 billion that were in the pipeline but now cannot be consummated because of the charter laps. the manufacturing sector, the chamber of commerce, they seized on that information saying there is a lot of businesses at risk in a lot of jobs at risk, and if congress does not act soon, it is very much to america's disadvantage and local

competitors get -- competitors. host: now that the charter has expired, how much easier is it for the opponents of the xm bank to reach that goal? caller: the thing they have working against them, the proponents of the shutdown, as there appears to be a healthy majority in both houses of congress to support the bank. once they find the right legislative vehicle to reauthorize the bank, chances are it will happen. what you have is sort of a perfect storm of legislative gridlock. bills coming through and just a lot of other things on the congressional agenda that xm did not get done by the deadline. conservatives are cheering for that but it will be hard for them sustain the victory over the long-term. host: we appreciate your time on

"the washington journal." caller: thank you very muchh. host: should the united states trustee ron and these -- i ran in these nuclear negotiations? caller: i believe that the iranians have a lot more to lose if this deal were to be scuttled. i think they need to go ahead with negotiations on our side and give them as much time as the iranians are asking for. the people of iran would not tolerate the government walking away from these negotiations. what we really need to insist on , and i'm disappointed that president obama has not done this, is that the human rights

issues be included in the negotiations. for example, the americans being held over there as prisoners. they need to be brought home. that should be an integral part of these negotiations. host: before you go i want to ask you about the extension of the deadline. you said we should give iran as long as they need on the issue. you're saying if they want another couple of months after next tuesday hits they should get it? how? long should that extension do one for? caller: another couple of months to be ok with me. the people of iran are disaffected at the government. they have got to answer to the people over there. they have more to lose on their side if this deal does not go through. i'm not sure what is holding it up right now but whatever it is

we should go ahead and let them have as much time as they need within reason. host: that was harold in texas this morning. one of the issues he brings up his u.s. families of americans jailed in iran seek relief. that is the headline from nbc news. negotiations continue behind closed doors to keep iran from developing nuclear weapons. the families of two americans imprisoned in iranian jails traveled to plead with officials to take advantage of the media spotlight and make their case and have a loved one's released. nbc news.com. in virginia, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i do not believe that obama should take more time. i don't believe he should a given the more time. i do not trust our president. i believe he has done so many

back deals. so much that he has done has been without the approval. as far as trust and iran, i don't believe they should be trusted. my son fought for 17 years. he came home and he is not doing well. he has issues and he was wounded. and it hurts him to know that our president, what he has done. he is not -- the truth as he has good he is only talked about a little bit and said he is not allowed to say what he would like and what he has experienced and what he hurt. -- heard. our president has disappointed our troops but they are not allowed to say that get he has hurt them antitrust a nation that has no regard for their

people, much less hours. and then do backdoor negotiations and release terrorists who have done damage to what our soldiers have fought for. bush did a great thing. he knew, political wise, that they have the stronghold and the religious aspect is what that woman said earlier. why is she condemning that? people would rather have religion out of the subject and allow for things -- and he knew what he was doing when you let for the gays, the illegal immigrants to push everything. this man has been deceiving. he is untrustworthy. i remove her from years ago when he was trying. he really does not support the military and neither does michelle. host: virginia and maryland on

our line for republicans this morning. mitch mcconnell with a column in "politico." writing in part in that piece that president obama and secretary of state kerry should use the opportunity to pause negotiations and take a step back and re-examine points of the talks in the first race. reaching the best till it sensible for iran, rather than furthering our goal of ending their nuclear program. establishing an international recognized iranian nuclear interest -- program is not an interest of the american people but is the premise on which the obama administration is approaching these talks." mitch mcconnell. if you want to read more from his piece. we are taking your comments for the next few minutes or so. tom?, you with us? caller: first i want to make --

it is a question statement. when a man gets arrested and he goes to jail, do we have to trust him not to escape or runoff? do you have to ask you not to? that is the same thing as this nuclear deal. trust does not have anything to do with it because we will be policing them at the same time. the question of trust makes no sense. do you see what i'm saying? host: you say it is more of an issue of their a find what they agree to? caller: right. what i'm saying is we don't have to trust them not to make the bomb because we will be watching them. that is kind of adult statement. -- a dull statement. you either make it agreement --

make an agreement or declare war. which do you want? host: monica on our twitter page says "i put my trust in kerry. war is not an option." host:paul in south carolina? caller: thank you for c-span. i would urge our negotiation -- negotiators to make the release of the americans a priority before we move forward. -- from california was correct. i think he was incorrect in stating that the government in iran -- has to answer to the people of iran. that does not work that way over there. they tried revolution several years ago and they all got beaten down, killed, and thrown into prison. thank you very much.

host: "the wall street journal" notes the biggest sticking point has been the iranian demand that an agreement would not allow you in nuclear watchdogs -- un nuclear watcjdphdogs at their sites. -- to check there is no covert nuclear program underway. "the wall street journal" on the extension of the new clear deadline. bill in illinois? caller: good morning. no, we should not trust iran. we have had -- they should not trust us, either it trust is a two-way street. so many americans -- so. -- we

supplied saddam with chemical weapons of mass destruction. and he use them against iran. with to take responsibly for at least half a million iranian lives. they can't trust us and we can't trust them. we have to move some kind of agreement. people call like we should be trusted. that is ridiculous. we can't trust them and they can trust us. host: bill in chicago illinois. "washington, iran trade warnings . president obama will walk away. interim deal extended by one week." tony in georgia, line for democrats. good morning. caller: thanks for letting me on.

i think the conversation is the wrong conversation. i think what you are seeing is iran is a big country. israel is a strong -- small country. israel has nuclear weapons and nobody expects israel nuclear weapons and bases. their entire arsenal is illegal yet israel is our friends. pakistan's arsenal is illegal but we traded pakistan. india's arsenal is illegal but we trade with india. why should israel, who has an illegal arsenal dictate our talking to some of yes was a member of the ftt.? mordechai balolo is under arrest because he said they have nuclear weapons. we are creating a reality where our friends can violate npt and we will trade with them but if you're not a friend of the united dates you will -- united

states, you will try to sink the economy. that is not fair. we overthrew the elected government of iran in 1953. then we installed the shaa. then we backed saddam hussein. why should it said on trust united states in great britain? host: some polling on american's trust in iran from the associated press. this poll from may after that framework it was reached, noting that a majority of americans like the idea of a preliminary deal struck between iran and the six world powers including united states to limit its nuclear program. according to the poll, 54% of americans approve and 43% disapprove of the preliminary agreement between the united states and iran and the five other world powers. that is slightly fewer than the six he percent of americans --

60% of americans and a 2014 poll who approved of an earlier interim agreement to hammer out the final details of that agreement and the deadline extended by one week. arlene in tampa, florida. you're up next. caller: yes, i do not trust the iranians and to meet it would be like leaving my little girl with a rapist. you cannot trust an enemy. host: norm is up next in new mexico. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i studied international security and arms control. funded by the ford foundation. all these comments about trust this morning -- it just shows a

lack of knowledge of the international system. when i was in grad school the big question was how can you trust an adversary to make an agreement with you? how can you give a yesabelle -- to an adversary? the professor told the class bluntly there is no police in the international system to enforce any laws. but there is trust the coast you can trust a nation to negotiate in its own best self-interest. as long as you keep that in the forefront and a strict regimen of verification you can have an effective nuclear deal as we had with the soviets. host: norm in new mexico this morning. a few programming notes as we

continue to take your calls on this issue of trusting iran and the nuclear negotiations. president obama will be speaking at 11:00 on the u.s.-cuba relations as news report comes out of embassies opening and those two countries. he will be making a statement of the white house at 11 and you can cash in on c-span. and then today at 2:30 this afternoon, the president will be speaking about health care. he will be traveling to tailor stratton elementary school outside of nashville tennessee to give those statements. you can watch set on c-span as well. time for a few more of your calls. william and indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i believe that the fellow in mexico had to say was very true. i inc. that the alternative is war. i think we will have to trust

the vacuum that a war would leave would be even worse than isis. iran is a huge country and that we will be after pummeling iran with war would be enormous. i think we should think of the consequences. thank you. host: bob is up next from long beach, california. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? on this nuclear deal with iran, israel wanted to knock that nuclear facility out a couple years back. but obama put all the other middle east countries against them. those countries hated israel since day one, especially iran. they wanted to knock them off the face of the earth. why did not -- why didn't obama

let israel knock out the nuclear facilities when they had the chance to do it? because the middle east hates israel to begin with. that would not of changed nothing. on this nuclear deal, that john kerry has going on, to drop the sanctions. they are not mentioning the $50 billion they will get -- give iran on dropping sanctions. they will take that $50 billion and put that in the nuclear program and tell you -- the united states to go pee up a rope. thank you. host: bob in long beach this morning. the front page of "the jerusalem post." the united states continuously briefing israel as these negotiations are ongoing. charlie is up next in trenton, florida.

good morning. caller: i wanted to say that we have to member we are in this with four or five other countries that are -- it is not just us that has the the worried about trusting. we have our other partners with us. we are all in this together. the joint richer we have put on iran -- joint pressure we put on a run would move this along and verify any results we get. host: you think united states is less trusting than some of those other five countries that were in this negotiation with iran? caller: i don't know. we probably are. or there is a big segment of this country that is a lot less trusting. although anything that comes of it -- it all depends and other

countries because we cannot do it alone. if we just sanction them by ourselves, it would not have a greats an effect if the other countries had a section on them. we need to let it play out and see if we can get a good deal. anything is better than war is so many other colors of said. host: you think it is something specifically about the united states and our culture that makes us less trusting? you think are less trusting then germany or china or russia or france or the united kingdom who were also in the negotiations as well? caller: i think a lot of the trust has to do with the recent history between the two countries and what is come to light with what we did back in the 1950's and our involvement in the iraq-iran war. overthrowing -- kicking us out with the embassy. there are still a lot of still raw injury there in the

relationship and the only way to start repairing that kind of thing is to develop some kind of trust. have an avenue where you can have some -- can build some trust. host: we got your point charlie di -- charlie. we want to show you the pope's schedule when he visits this fall has been mostly set. it will include stops of the white house, a school in harlem and the philadelphia prison according to the itinerary reading -- released tuesday by the vatican. he flies into washington on september 22 at 4:00 and is scheduled to give a speech before congress on september 24 at 9:20 a.m. he flies out of the united states on september 27 according to the itinerary.

his stop in new york will include a visit to the united nations general assembly. another new story out of making headlines. the first batch of hillary clinton's e-mails a been released. they are a fraction of the 55,000 pages that clinton turned over to the state department after she left office. 1925 additional dock is released yesterday totaling over 3000 pages are from 2009, the first year she served as secretary of state. lots of interest in what is in those e-mails and those releases scheduled to come on a monthly basis. we will look for more the stores as they come out. we go to gym in minneapolis minnesota on our line for independents as we continued to talk about iran and the issue of trust. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you having me on. i am sick of how crazy this is.

we are bending over backwards to try to get a deal with people that support 80% of the terrorism around the world. it is crazy. the only way you can deal with the people over there is with force. let's face it. that is a proven time and time again. there are no negotiations get the minute they get a bomb they will hit israel. it is crazy to sit and let them dictate policy. host: you think war is inevitable? caller: they are not in a let them have the bomb. that is a fact. we are either with them or against them and i do not think will be against israel. it is all smoke and mirrors with this administration from day one. it is crazy. they will do whatever it takes. obama's legacy.

it's just asinine to try to deal with somebody he was promoting terrorism and then they said there leader will not back off. we will bomb them the minute we get the thing. walk away from these rules and get a grip on reality. look at yemen. come on. it does not take a genius to figure out there promoting so much terrorism. and they will not accept our terms as far as a military base. it is crazy. host: ivory in madison, mississippi. line for democrats. good morning to you. caller: thank you for taking my call. the thing is with trust in iran, we have to be trustworthy also. it goes both ways.

i have seen no wrong that obama has done trying to keep peace. we just lost 5000 troops in iraq. spent 2 -- 2 trillion-$3 trillion. we have terrorist right here in the united states. if a crazy caucasian goes into a church and kills nine people, they call them "insane ." let's get our own house in order first before we go and try to correct someone else. host: that is ivory in mississippi. the last color in today's "washington journal." we will be taking viewers to the national press building this morning on a discussion on cuba's program for preventing

sexually transmitted diseases. they are the first country in the world to initiate a formal validation process for those diseases. that begins in just a few minutes here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we are waiting for the minister. he is in the building.