and tweets. later, governor gary herbert. then, presidential candidate hillary clinton, visiting florida. >> president obama: somehow, this has become routine. , myreporting is routine response here at this podium and that being routine. the conversation in the aftermath of it, we become gnome to this. mb to this. host: president obama reacting to the shooting on accords campus -- college campus. republicans, call (202) 748-8001 , democrats, call (202) 748-8000

, independents, call (202) 748-8002. twitter,omment on or on facebook. obama has frequently railed against congress's refusal to pass additional gun control curbres in an effort to mass shootings. especially in the wake of the december 14 2012 massacre of 20 students, six teachers at sandy hook elementary school in newtown, connecticut. on thursday, he delivered remarks in which she feared from anger to incredulity as he described his amazement at a slew of horrific attacks had failed to spur a response from washington political establishment. country isg how the willing to devote a more -- enormous resources to address other threats to human life ranging from terrorist strikes

to unsafe bridges, obama questioned why there is a different response when it comes to guns. here's a little the more the president. [video clip] president obama: this is a political choice that we make. to allow this to happen every few months in america. we, collectively, are answerable for those families who lose their loved ones because of our interaction. -- in action. when americans are killed in mining disasters, work to make mine's a safer. when americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. when roads are unsafe, we fix them. fatalities, we have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives. that gun violence

-- that ourifferent freedom and our constitution modest regulation weapon,e use a deadly when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who hunt and protect their families under such regulations, doesn't make sense. oregon state recently tightened gun laws, the location of the latest deadly shooting.

host: still, oregon does not prohibit the transfer possession of assault weapons, nor does it have a gun purchase waiting period. more than ever, the u.s. is a patchwork of laws with the ghastly murder rampage at sandy hook element tree school in 2012 failing to produce the national reform the gun-control activists had hoped from a divided congress. of thefront page "washington times," is this article. the community college debated guns, opted against armed guards. the community college, the site of the latest shooting has grappled firsthand with the complex questions of gun violence, opting last year

against having armed guards and developing plans to deal with an active shooter after a fatal incident at a nearby high school in 2006.

host: we begin with dan in verona, new york on the democrat line. you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you for letting me be the first collar. -- yesterday afternoon, i was sad to see the president cannot in jump on this bandwagon rights,king away your my rights to defend myself. i will point this out again. on the there were people campus who were armed and trained to defend those students, this would have ended in a matter of seconds. understand one thing. unless there is a police officer standing right next to, the only person who can protect you, is you. this person was targeting christians.

new ballgame,e folks. i'm a registered democrat. but, the liberal mindset in this country has destroyed the moral fabric of our country. and it's wrong. i want to see anybody get hurt. but the time has come that we ought to stand up and realize we have to defend ourselves. the politicians are not going to do it. the laws will not do it. the laws are supposed to be a deterrent. but generally notice the cops show up after the fact. i appreciate you letting me speak my mind, and i have kids in school, have kids in the military. i have family out there sending kids to school. kids in your great schools, colleges, the next time it will be a shopping mall. they will go to these gun free zones and do whatever they want. host: that is dan in verona, new york. but as feed news shows a candlelight vigil in roseburg, oregon at uc see. lawrence and st. paul,

minnesota. ted koppel did a special in 2003 where they talked about the global gun business. here's what i took away from it. 80% of the guns traded in this 20% is aboveal, the water, the legal part. we did with alcohol back in the 1920's, we band it and see if that will solve the problem. in fact, he created a criminal underworld and made instant citizens -- innocent citizens criminal. we need to educate children along the lines of gun safety early in their youth, middle school, high school, and quite frankly, we need to have a better moral compass in this country in terms of respecting other individuals. peter, thanks for your time. wayne is in shreveport,

louisiana. republican line. caller: i watched obama play politics yesterday on this gun-control stuff. we have enough gun-control bills regulate whocan't has a brain and who ain't. this stuff is going to happen, man. some of the shootings, like that guy that shot his mom and took her guns, gun-control law isn't going to stop it. you can't violate the second amendment because as obama's rhetoric goes, he wants to disarm america, just like he wants to shut down our energy and everything in this country. we are living under a dictatorship right now, man. all these murders going on in chicago, you don't hear nothing about that. they don't say a word about chicago. he brings up something like this. , we have a right to

keep and bear arms in this country. we will be like germany in world war ii. look what happened to the jews over there when they gave up their guns. history repeats itself, you know that. mean, it's a shame it happened, but you can't give up your freedom for maniac, you know? host: wayne, are you a gun owner? caller: i used to be. anymorehave them because i had to get rid of them, but i'm in a member of the nra, the story about my guns is a long story. thanks for calling in. this is from the gun violence gun violence 2015, so far this year, the number of incidents, 39,529, the number of

9956, 20,000uns, plus injured. in next call comes from tom maryland, in the suburbs. democrat, you are on "washington journal." i am sneaking to you from the perspective of police officers and what i want the public to know is that when you police, we are coming. we have to keep in mind is, when you dial 911, first, you have to make a call, which will take whatever amount of time. from when the call goes the call taker to a dispatcher, the police are handling multiple things at the same time when they are in a metropolitan area. that call finally gets out to to 10lice, it easily five minutes of gone past. this entire time, you are still at risk. and so you having to defend

yourself is absolutely essential. off-duty, i carry have no issue with law-abiding citizens getting guns. criminals do not care about laws. , making it the law illegal for law-abiding citizens to have firearms is the most ludicrous conclusion you could possibly come to. i support president obama on just about everything in most categories and situations. but i cannot agree with him based on his decisions as far as firearms. mrs. a man who has many guns protecting him, just like the congressman has many guns protecting them. host: how long have you been a police officer? caller: i have been a police officer for four years. host: dear fellow police officers agree with your view on this?

that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry? caller: most police officers have no issue with law-abiding citizens carrying guns, mainly because we don't have issues ofh the law-abiding citizens guns. we have issues with individuals who aren't law-abiding citizens with guns. people who have stolen guns, people who are felons, people who commit crimes. you having a gun in your house, or if you decide to have -- you an adult making decisions they want to make a firearm -- and not saying carrying a firearm is for everyone, because it really isn't. it's not something you should have if you are to make that decision to defend yourself. it could put you at risk. myt's why i have given fiancé pepper spray, because is not a good thing for her to carry, because for making that decision is not something i believe is within her

capability, expect -- except under the most extreme circumstances. or making itllegal more difficult for law-abiding ridiculous.buy is i live in maryland right now. i went to purchase a firearm for myself that was more compact and i could have out of the way. ofa police officer, because the way laws have been changed, even as a police officer, tobias firearm, i would have to spend close to $1000 for one handgun. that is utterly ridiculous. host: could you, if you wanted to, i want to legally -- illegally? caller: i would never buy a firearm illegally. host: could you? so, i'm sure if that was what my intention was, to not follow the laws of that nature,

i'm sure it's possible. but there's a right way to go about things. in the state of maryland there's a process i would have to go through to get a firearm, which i went through the process. when they explained to me the process, he i said you mean to tell me the firearm itself is $500, and i would have to pay $400 in taxesost and fees and various other things when i carry a firearm currently every single day. in every location that i go into. host: you know, in maryland and and the district of columbia, the laws are a lot different virginia, aren't they? caller: yes, virginia's gun laws are dramatically different. the district of columbia, a lot of their gun laws have gone back and forth in court and been

struck down by various courts at different times. as an ever-changing policy, they are just finally know getting clear on what you can actually carry in the district, very few have gotten that. issues witht of being able to get firearms, i'm saying putting additional obstacles for law-abiding citizens to get firearms is not in the best interest of the public. host: that's the perspective of a police officer in maryland, here's the perspective of someone who lives in virginia, sam is calling in from manassas, virginia, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i want to have a decent approach to everything, i hope you don't cut me off. basedeve this is all because lucifer, the falling angel has entered our society. in 1973, we had roe versus wade.

after vietnam fell, and everything had been going to hell, let me say this also. in 2008 in california, people voted for same -- against same-sex marriage and then same-sex marriage was approved by some judge up there. we'rerying to say is going against the scriptures. nextad one thing after the since roe versus wade. and it's going to get worse because there are more blessings in this country from god and i think was first running wild. host: bets from manassas, virginia. the organ congressional delegation all tweeted out reactions of course to what roseburg, oregon. we show you those as we take this next call from harry and brandywine, maryland on the democrat line. caller: yes, hello. basically, i have an issue with these gun laws.

the gun laws are so loose that the gun lobbyists are in control of these legislators. they control everything. basically you have people who are dying by people who can own ors, don't have any medical psychological checks. nobody is checking these people. you have to check these people before you put guns in their hands. that's my problem with the whole issue. people are losing their lives with mental -- with guns in the hands of mental and sick people. who is taking care of that? who is stopping them? that is harry in brandywine, maryland. the oregonian in portland, oregon, here's their front page -- grief follows campus carnage.

paul in tampa, republican line. i am responding to the president for he gave their about -- you listed things the country does when things happen. when people have car accidents, we get seatbelts, when their floods, we do flood prevention. hypocritical that he failed to mention two things he does nothing about. when illegal immigrants seem to kill people, he doesn't mention it here in not only that, he releases tens of thousands of them, criminal illegals back into our country, refuses to deport them, and he doesn't mention that. the other thing he does nothing about -- we know that muslims are coming into the country, and they are leaving and going in joining isis. he doesn't mention that. why doesn't he do something about that?

there are two things he does nothing about that he does nothing -- the board on his list. i wonder why? he's so political about guns but he's not political about the two things he does nothing about it ignores. host: that is paul in tampa. the white house never misses a chance to politicize strategy, to divide americans. because of partisan rant is what america needs after an event like this. here's a little bit more the president from yesterday. [video clip] president obama: tonight, as those of us who are left to hug , our thinkinger about the families who are so fortunate. i'd ask him american people to think about how they can get our government to change these laws. and to save lives. and to let young people grow up.

and that will require a change of politics on this issue. it will require that the american people, individually, whether you are a democrat or republican or an independent -- when you decide to vote for are making a determination as to whether this cause of continuing death for innocent people should be a relevant factor in your decision. problem,ink this is a you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views. askuld particularly , who are gun owners using those guns properly, sport, forunt, for

totecting their families think about whether your views are being properly represented by the organization that suggests it is speaking for you. host: on our facebook page, let's read a couple of quick comments. through says why is the media so hesitant to mention his motive? the man who is targeting christians. when a white man speaks -- shoots of a church with a motive to kill blacks, it's all over the news. michelle says shooting a gun free zones, i know let's ban guns. and democrats wonder why no one takes them seriously. -- senseless. the president is right. we have become numb by these mass shootings. 45 mass shootings in 2015 alone. joey says that obama praised a muslim kid for bring a suitcase to school made up like a bomb. east orange, new

jersey on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. what i would like to say this morning is simply that it is the hate in this country that causes the violence. the country was built on hate. the first people to come to this country other than the ones that were living here, the indigenous indians, killed people that were here for their land. the hate that is all over the television, movies, the violence , the hate of muslims, the disregard for muslims in their own country, the alcohol into their country. not covering their head, thinking that it's ok for women to walk around in bikinis -- all of that is what is causing the violence in this country. the fact that there are people in this country that think that this should be a predominantly and exclusively white country, and that no one should come here unless they are going to be practically a slave for the

predominantly majority community in this country is wrong. this country was built on hate, we hear on television is hate, we see on television is hate. demonize thoseto of other religions, those that look different, those that think differently, those that simply want to be equal to everyone else -- if we continue to think that the laws in this country, that our constitution which says that everyone is eagle is wrong, if you think that it's ok to walk into a bar, drink, have your gun, and shoot it up -- if you think it's ok to get on television or for trumped to get on television and talk about hate and then not see the repercussions of it then yes, there's a problem with education in this country. we forgot how to reason. we don't know how to reason. if we did, would show some

respect, stop the violence, stop the hatred, and live in peace. east that's gladys in orange, new jersey. this is john in north carolina from twitter. i can't imagine going to bed without a handgun within reach. i live in the country and the sheriff is only 30 minutes away. steve is calling in from indianapolis. caller: yes. i agree with a lot of what obama said. we do need some sort of regulation. goodobbyists do a really job of scaring people in this country. saying we're going to take your guns from you. nobody will ever, ever take your guns from you. to sit and say there should be no regulation -- that's not right either. there has to be some intelligence in this country that we can come up with some solution. unfortunately, in today's society, you're not going to stop someone crazy from walking in anywhere -- a restaurant, a school, any public facility public area -- we are all in

danger, anything could happen at any time. but to sit back and the same guys -- it's always republicans, obama, obama, obama -- he tried. he's tried to do things. --sit and turn a blind eye you are politicizing it as well. everyone the calls and today -- if it had been your loved one that got killed yesterday, you or any day, then what would you feel like? host: that is stephen indianapolis. --shington post," headline in avoidable tragedies. so far this you there eventually 94 mesh shooting incidents in which four more people are killed or injured by gunfire. that's only 274 days into the year.

host: sensible gun control laws, including ones backed by vast majority of americans, such as bringing gun show and internet gun sales and is a reasonable revelatory framework.

host: paul, jasper, georgia, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. is a noted forensic psychiatrist at the university of missouri who co-authored a paper on the mentally ill and firearms. clearly set forth that the mental health community, physicians, are required as a matter of federal law on the books today to alert law enforcement of any individual, including their that would be a harm to themselves or others. and for law enforcement to then

ascertained by investigation whether that individual has access to firearms. to take into custody this firearms and if they find them, and to have a responsible member of the family petition a court to have them released. we are not insensitive to what's happening here. anymore than we are insensitive to the 20,000 deaths on american highways. the situation is not going to be resolved until someone follows the advice, like a professor at , whoniversity of missouri has brought it to everyone's attention, including numbers of congress, what needs to be done by the law enforcement and mental health community. a big bite oute of these unusual situations that occur like they occurred yesterday in oregon. host: that is paul in georgia. american needs a

psychiatric examination. anyone who doesn't think mass shootings is a political issue must live on another planet. joel is calling in from san diego, california. a democrat. we're talking this morning "washington journal," on the shootings at the unity college in oregon. stuck with the union. i grew up in a union family. i believe in unions. the republicans have always backs ofbreak the unions. with that said, i am also a strong believer in the constitution. unlike the caller a few callers haiti, was talking about believeng about hate, i something different. i believe it is about love.

the people who started this country loved freedom, loved freedom of religion, loved to be free from tyrannical governments. i see our country, they try to take the right to way that our forefathers fought so hard for. be a democratt much longer. it looks like he's trying to take our guns away, trying to break the back of the constitution. this is a right that should not be taken away because it will lead to tyranny. like the previous caller said, what happened in germany, we cannot ever let that happen. we have to be armed and protect ourselves. i'm totally against anyone who is trying to, because these lunatics on pharmaceutical drugs , they get whacked out and shoot people, it has nothing to do with guns. they could take a butcher knife. i was stationed in london and there are all kinds of crime. when i was in the navy, on our command, there were tons of stabbings.

there are no guns. people will find a way to kill you. thank you. host: are you a gun owner today e? he is gone. we check in with wes in akron, ohio, independent line. caller: they talk about the 10 people killed at ucc, and obama coming forward about it. it was a tragedy, but of course we kill 2700 children every month in this country, and over the last weekend there were four times more shootings in chicago and then people killed thaat ucc. in the people who take your guns are wrong. they already did it in louisiana. they claim martial law and take guns.

so that is pretty much what i have got to say. you have to look at things logically. host: from "the hill" newspaper vice president biden said the community college shooting in ,regon dead and seven wounded it is part of the dysfunction in washington. he said there is an overwhelming consensus in america on two things, the second amendment and relating toislation background checks. he was in new york city when he made his comments. and the second amendment does not say you can own a bazooka. it does not say you can own an f-15 with hellfire missiles. the next call is frankie beverly, new jersey. republican line. hi, frank. you are on "the washington

journal." i am not too happy with what happened, but i will say i am pro-gun. whether you want to believe this or not, and the rest of the people, the gun is what made this people -- made this country what it is today at how special it is with our constitution. i would just like to say one thing. i will hold you to back long. the letter what you do, what law you pass, you cannot regulate morality. since cain and abel there has been evil and good on this earth. you are always going to have to performo is going an evil acts, no matter what it is with -- a car, it all that, a knife,- a ball bat, a whatever it is. frank, are you a gun owner

in new jersey? i am.: yes, i am a certified arms instructor. for all those who think it is so easy to get guns the right and legal way, you cannot do that. ast: what is it like to get gun in new jersey? caller: it is tough. we have a one-gun-a-month now. you used to be a to buy as many as you wanted, and the laws now -- he used to be able to buy as many as you wanted. your state checks, local and municipality checks, then you have to go through the next check. to buy a gun in pennsylvania, it has to be transferred over here. it is not as easy as everybody makes it out to be. if you are going to break the law, you're going to find a way to get back i do not care what law they pass, other than banning firearms. that is the only way you're going to cure this. i hope that will never happen.

host: one more question. what you think about the so-called -- what do you think but the so-called loophole in gun sales on the internet? internet, ihe cannot answer that with any clarity because i do know one thing. when you buy a firearm, ok, you a check.o if i am not correct, please excuse me. but even if you go to a gun show , i believe you still have to have a check. that is my belief. host: thank you, sir. jesse, democrat, from michigan. caller: good morning to you. i have never heard so much stupid idiots like those calling

in this morning, all filled with hate. i just do not understand it. jesse's comment, from muskegon, michigan. donald trump tweeted, "my warmest condolences to the families of the horrible ."seburg, oregon, shootings writes, "the terrible events have inspired , videos, andeets facebook postings. they have also inspired a secondary phenomenon, the news media's nearly instant descent on anyone posting such accounts in search of interviews. so it was thursday, when a gunman opened fire at a community college and roseburg,

oregon, killing at least nine and wounding seven before he was killed. within moments of the first tweets from people in roseburg came follow-up tweets from journalists seeking to speak to those who witness the rampage and a backlash way from people disgusted by the news media. one such exchange attracted broad attention and inspired a discussion about the media's proper role. the exchange started when a young woman who goes by the @kp_kayla marie again live tweeting, omg, there ,s someone shooting on campus students are running everywhere. holy god. she was soon swamped by requests for interviews. message,m, direct

tweeted nbc news. that tweet has been deleted. i am a reporter for nbc news. iba had plenty of company. reporters from abc news, msnbc, inside edition, radar online, mail online, fox news, the bbc, and french news organizations tweeted requests for interviews, too. the daily unleashed a mountainous third wave, this one of revulsion as people reading the journalists' tweets reacted. , tweetedhuman vultures one. sickening, wrote another. journalists say the public reaction may miss an important element. this is how news is gathered and how the public gets accurate information when news breaks. that is, the only way to separate the fact from fiction in a news story is by going

directly to the people involved. long before the advent of social media, reporters were knocking on doors and stopping strangers in the streets to seek facts and comments. often this involved approaching people who might only have recently experienced a tragedy. social media makes this process transparent. people now see the dirty work that reporters undertake in real time." andrew is calling in from bellevue, florida. you are on the "washingon journal." caller: good morning, sir. it is a testament to you, as john oliver points out, how you are able to keep a straight face when people like frank in new jersey clearly say that this country was founded on the gun, and the most wonderful thing about this country is the gun.

no, this country was founded on religious freedoms. the first amendment is not guns. the second amendment talks about guns with a well regulated militia. we do not need wacko, crazy prayingn this country to guns. i am a gun owner. i am a responsible gun owner. and every time there is a mass shooting in this country, i do not say that it was a person that killed the people, it was a gun that killed the people. anytime you want to get a gun, you need to go from criminal and mental background checks. president obama has done a wonderful job. when people call your show and say he has done nothing about immigration, he has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president before him. strongly for the

president because he is trying to get things done to limit these mass shootings. on 9/11, 3000 plus people died. our country's response was to go to war, spend over $1 trillion, and have 3000 more military people die. but 9000 people year die in this crazy massm these shootings, these crazy shootings, and we do nothing. nothing. it is so sad to see president obama so frustrated, because he represents my frustration. for someone to walk into a school and just start shooting. we should be doing everything we can to find commonsense solutions to limit the number of mass shootings, to take the guns out of the hands of people that

might kill. obama is not taking anyone's guns away. host: andrew in bellevue, florida, thank you for calling in. as we continue to take calls, a lot of members of congress have tweeted out their reactions to what happened in roseburg, oregon, and we will show you those as well. kathy, a democrat, go ahead. caller: hi there. i grew up in roseburg, oregon. what i wanted to say is this. i hear so many gun advocates, and i do not know where they are coming from. know,cond amendment, you is to help you fight, you know, a gun-crazy government. if you think you can fight the government with your firearms, you are crazy. that ahave an ideology

will protect you from government tyranny, you are crazy. look at waco. look at ruby ridge. is delusion that having guns to protect you from the government tyranny is only giving you the ability to kill , and just other people. it does not stop the government. that second amendment is ancient. you know, they bring in tanks now, and they bring in horrible weapons. guns are your absolutely useless against government tyranny, and that is what the second amendment was all about. and it is absolutely no excuse to have guns the way we have them in america today. hear -- all i i have heard pretty much since the show began -- and i have been listening since the beginning -- it is just these -- i don't know -- hubris people, saying, i am

keeping my gun. what the hell good is that? there are 10 kids dead in oregon where i grew up. and i guess that is all i have to say. kate tweets in, "i am for the second amendment now. however, what regular, sane person needs an assault weapon? automatic weapons? only our military should own." next call comes from shirley in dayton, ohio, republican line. surely, you are on "washingon journal." caller: hello? i am glad i got through. i would just like to say that i do believe that people should be allowed to have guns, but i also believe they should be law-abiding citizens. because you should never allow thatdy to have a firearm is not trained to use it or that they are going by the law, just like you are not allowed to drive a car without a drivers license. but if a person has an accident

deliberatelythey run over somebody and kill somebody, the law does not take away the car. they prosecute the person. they have broken the law. we are not saying you should take away a car if the car kills a person. the car did not do it, the person driving it did. so a person has a free will. they will obey the law or they will not. what we need to do is enforce the laws on the books. now, as far as somebody being able to carry a gun, everybody should be treated equal. here is the catch. president obama has people following him, and they are armed, and he is protected by a gun. why does he need people following him around for protection? why does he need a gun? the same reason american citizens need protection. since they follow him around -- and that is fine. the regular american people, the regular citizens do not have

policeman in their household as a rule. i do because i do have lots of policeman. but they are not there all the time. we need to be in to protect ourselves if we feel that we are in danger, but i do not think that just anybody should have a gun. they should be screened because mentally disabled people should not be allowed to have a gun. host: have you ever talked to your son-in-law about the gun laws? does he feel like an earlier caller, a police officer, who called in and said he thinks it is ok for law-abiding citizens to carry? that, and ioes say am a christian and our pastor of our church owns a gun. he says if anybody comes on my property -- and he threatens my him up-- you will pick in my front yard. because he is held accountable to protect his family.

god gives him a family, and he is to protect his family. in that circumstance, if somebody is going to come into your property, into your home, you have the right to defend yourself. we have soldiers that defend our nation? we give them all a gun. you have to be regulated. the thing is, the laws on the books is not being enforced. you make good laws. if it is a bad law, change the law, but obey the law. obey the lawse to spiritually, and we are to obey the laws of the land. the problem comes when policeman are not allowed to do their job always because plenty of policeman pick up a man that has committed a crime, takes them down to jail, and within three hours he is out on the street again. because i had a daughter-in-law and she got shot in the head.

they arrested that man and locked him up. but it was not the gun, it was that we can man -- that wicked man that did the deed. he is held accountable. i do not blame the gun, i really do not. he could have done it with anything else, and i thank you very much for taking my call. host: roger? caller: yes, sir. i find it just awful strange that in the inner cities, you know, you can have more than this just every weekend. weekend, kids shot in their homes. it is never mentioned because 99% of those shootings are people who are illegal already to own a gun. why does he come after legal gun owners and have us give up gun? why doesn't he enforce the laws

on -- already in effect to go after people who own guns illegally. host: roger, are you a gun owner? caller: yes, sir. host: have you ever used your gun for defensive purposes? never have.r have, never had to threaten anybody, never had to do anything. never have called the police in my life, and i am 56 years old. i live in a good community. a god -- god fearing people who respect each other. .ost: that is roger in alabama some tweets. richard says, "the president needs to lead on this gun issue. our gun laws are insane." somee if there had been armed security guard on campus, some of those students would still be alive." it, theys, "let's face

main threat to our safety and security comes from domestic raised and grown terrorists." and from edward, "what obama said was all true. about our unique problem with guns compared to other developed nations here cap we appreciate participating in our conversation this morning about what happened in oregon. we have three segments coming up on the "washingon journal." we will be talking about tax proposals by some of the gop candidates. we will talk about immigration, and we will talk about income and poverty in the u.s. a little bit later. the census reports on that issue came out just recently. coming up first, kyle pomerleau of the tax foundation will be here in just a second to talk about donald trump's tax plan, jeb bush's tax plan, and some of the other gop tax plans. as you may know, if you are a

regular viewer of c-span, we travel around the country with our local content vehicles to visit local communities to look at their literary and historical sites area this weekend, on our booktv and american history tv channels, we are going to visit , north of, california san francisco. here is the mayor of santa rosa, talking about that city's history. >> santa rosa is located 52 miles north of san francisco on freeway 101. it is the urban center of sonoma county, the government center, the financial center. one day i hope it will be the cultural center of our county. i think santa rosa is best known because of the local economy being so affected by vineyards and wineries. not only thes

winery industry and the great industry, but we are also known by our surrounding -- and the pe industry, but we are also known by our surrounding area. -- he did filmm a number of movies in santa rosa. one of the best-known is "shadow of a doubt." it captured santa rosa probably at its height, with the downtown being very busy and bustling, and our courthouse was in the middle of our town square. it was a great time to be in santa rosa for architecture. it was a very lively and vital place in sonoma county. probably when "shadow of a doubt" was filmed was probably a great time because the downtown commercial center was fully intact. there were no secondary shopping areas. it was the place to be. it was the city it other than

san francisco, santa rosa was the city andrew from areas far and wide to not only do shopping but conduct business. they have had to do all the government work here as well. announcer: "washington journal" continues. kyle on our screen, pomerleau, an economist with the tax foundation. we are going to discuss some of the gop candidates' tax plans. here is a little from donald trump's announcement. donald trump: we are going to cut the individual rates from seven brackets to four. simplification. 20%, 10%, and 0%. if you are zero and you earn less than $25,000 per year, or lessed and jointly earn than $50,000. .

and you earnrtant less than $25,000 or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not pay any income tax. nothing. eliminates very strongly and quickly the marriage penalty, a very unfair penalty. it eliminates the amc, the alternative minimum tax. it ends the death tax, the double taxation a lot of families go through hell over. it reduces or eliminates most of the deductions and loopholes available to special interests and to the very rich. in other words, it is going to cost me a fortune. pomerleau, how significant is this plan? how radical is mr. trump's plan. guest: you can think of his plan

in two ways. on its face it looks conventional for a gop tax plan. you cut the marginal tax rates to broaden the base. on the business side he lowers the corporate tax from 35% to 15%. so he is hitting all those pieces. he also mentions eliminating the estate tax, he calls it the death tax. the parallel income tax system in the united states. these are very typical gop. but when you look at it underneath and how all of these pieces work, it gets a little bit more radical in the size of the tax cuts. in fact, when we ran the numbers for his plan, it looks very close to jeb bush's plan, but it ends up being more than twice the size in terms of the tax cuts. especially what he is doing on the individual income tax. host: one of the things you said , he is closing the loopholes to broaden the base, but at the same time he writes in a recent

op-ed in "the wall street journal" that 47 million people would be taken off the rolls completely. the sort ofis hidden part right there. he talks about his 0% bracket. that is akin to a $25,000 standard deduction where individuals can earn up to $25,000 tax-free, $50,000 for married couples. not sure what he is doing with the personal exemption, which makes it a little higher there. he is creating a very, very narrow base at the bottom end. that is very expensive, because not only do people at the bottom benefit from that, but people at the top do as well. very quickly, here is a look at the trunk tax plan. four tax brackets, 0, 10, 20, and 25%. no income tax for individuals making less than $25,000, or

couples $50,000 and under. corporate tax rate cut from 15% -- to 15% from 35%. that eliminates the state tax. when it comes to cutting the corporate rate, we have heard the u.s. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. is that true? slightly true. in the industrialized world, yes. among the largest 34 countries, we do have the highest. the next highest is france, 34.4%. we are at 35 percent. if you loop in the state and local taxes corporations have to pay on their profits, we are up to 39%. not only are they the highest in the industrialized world, there is a sizable growing gap between first place and second place. the rest of the world, there are a few countries -- especially african countries -- that have a slightly higher corporate income tax. yes, this is one place trump focuses on, but also other gop

candidates focus on. democrats focus on this as well. 28%, wants to cut it to although he goes about it in a different way. pomerleau, we hear every couple of months about a large corporation that has paid no taxes, but there is a 35% corporate tax rate. why do we hear they are paying no taxes? guest: this is the difference. it is an interesting difference between average rates and marginal rates. the 35% is what is called the marginal rate. for every additional dollar of profit your, you pay $.35 in tax on that. now, in the past two years, the economy -- we are going back to 2008, 2009, 2010. this is when those reports started coming out as corporations are paying close to 0%, 2%, 5% of their income in taxes. one of the reasons why is because our tax system is built, that if loses money in a year,

in other words is in the negative profits, somehow you have to account for that. the corporate tax allows businesses to carry forward losses, and that allows corporations to deduct those losses. even in 2011 where there may be some profit there, they are taking losses for previous years and sticking them on to make sure that over a long till of time corporations are able to account for losses. if you do not allow corporations to do that, you are overtaxing donald trump wrote this in "the wall street journal" about part of his proposal and could you help explain what this means. i propose ending the current treatment of caring for interest of hedge funds and speculative partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs. what does that mean to you and i and to businesses? guest: for uni, probably not

very much. carried interest is one of those great political talking points and it is true that in some cases carried interest is supposed to be taxed as ordinary income. most of the stuff is invested tax to capital gains. however if we were to eliminate that would hold, and this is the interesting part that goes to the political talking point, a limited in this loophole only raises taxes i a billion dollars per year. $10 a decade, talking about billion or $15 billion in increased taxes. in the context of the trump plan, that is in context with his $10 trillion tax cut. it goes back to the politics of it. it makes a great target, but it

is not meaningful in the context of his reform. host: another candidate who is come out with a comprehensive tax plan is jeb bush. here he is speaking about it. [video clip] >> we need to grow at a far faster rate. 2% is fine for people who have made it, particularly with monetary policy. people'sting a lid on aspirations. 6 million more people living in poverty today than the day that barack obama got elected president. a high-growth strategy requires, first and foremost, a dramatic reform of our tax code. what we have for most desperate post a simple find the rates -- 10, 25, 58 -- expanding and doubling the exclusion so low income earners will not pay simplifying the code to put a cap on deductions because there are thousands and thousands of these credits and inductions that i think create -- do not create the kind of environment for somethin.

everything else would be part of the cap. we would eliminate local and state exemption taxes. statest think high tax should be subsidized. that system for personal taxes will create an environment where people will be saving more. all people will get a tax cut of some kind. host: in "the wall street journal" yesterday, kyle pomerleau in the lead editorial side of the tax foundation you work for. bush's plan which has gained enemies and credibility because of specificity, gets far more economic thing for each dollar of tax cut. the tax foundation estimates that the bush plan would lift gdp by 10% above where it would be otherwise. how so? guest: the important margins of which the bush tax plan improves the economy is a lot on the business side. this is a lot of the typical gop stuff from the business side.

he is lowering corporate tax from 35% to 20%. taxs reducing marginal rates on individual income, and looming state tax. these are all progrowth measures. one thing that he does let the trump plan does not do is go to full expensing of capital investment. the sounds really arcane, but what this is is allowing businesses to fully deduct the expenses in the year that they are made. if a business is to build a factory or a piece of machinery to expand, they get a deduction for the full value of that. under current law, they have to take the price of a factory and deduct it as much as over 40 years. that increases the cost of that investment and makes it less worthwhile. you may not see that factory ever be created. with full expensing, it reduces the cost of investment and

leaves a lot of economic growth. host: jeb bush has proposed full expensing. guest: he has proposed full expensing. host: we talked about these two guys, but what about the other gop candidates who proposed a tax plan? guest: there have been two proposals -- one of them is senator rubio. he has proposed one must senator mike lee. cut built it as a big tax for the middle class. it has a lot of features that gop plans happy lower marginal rates, lower corporate rate -- but what is different about the itio and lee plan is that and ask a large child tax credit .f $205 for tha that is the piece there. there is senator rand paul's plan. he goes to what is called a flat tax whichodified flat

.s a 14.5% flat tax on income the converts the corporate tax to what he calls a business transfer tax. you can think of it as another word for a value added tax. he converts the corporate tax to a value added tax. the individual income tax is a flat 14.5% tax. this tax also, by definition, has full expensing. rubio's plan also has full expensing. those plans are going for the growth aspect as well. ump's plan, the gop plans have been so far progrowth because a business tax reforms, specifically. think. host: the tax foundation has estimated 10% growth with the bush plan. had he criticized or critique the trump plan so far? guest: we looked at the costs and benefits of the plan could

p's plan cost side, trum cost $12 trillion if enacted today. compare that to bush's tax plan and that tax plan cut taxes by $3.6 trillion. that is more than three times the cost of trump's plan. because there are cuts, there are growth aspects there. estimate around 11% higher gdp that otherwise over about a decade. in the 10th year, gdp will be 11% higher than otherwise. mp plan, it is difficult to be certain with that given the fact that the tax cut is so large. without spending cuts to offset that, the debt will increase substantially and that may drag growth a little bit. what about the democrats?

far, the democrats have not released any fundamental tax reform plans, but you have heard noise from both hillary and bernie sanders. they're looking at different individual proposals. bernie sanders has a number of spending proposals that he has attached some tax reform ideas too. not necessarily eliminate the cap on social security payroll tax, but start $250,000 and above subject back to the payroll tax. he is also talked about a financial transaction tax. as a general rule here, democrats don't really -- they have not really put out fundamental plants that look to reshape the entire texico. host-- texico. host: kyle pomerleau is our guest from the tax foundation. dan is calling in from ohio on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i believe that if you

look at the tax code that it is so massive and complicated. daycan call the irs on one and they will give you one answer. if you call back the next a and talk to somebody else, they are going to give you a different answer. we need simplification. rates, ao lower the limited the loopholes so that everybody is paying the fair , and then the part that nobody talks about is that the government needs to spend less money. if you say these tax plans are going to bring in less money, ok. people who do not work at all that make no income get a tax refund. what business do you have taken my money that i work hard for and giving it to somebody who doesn't work and then talking we don't have income that is bringing in more money to government? the government needs to spend less, not more. and that's the bottom line.

let's go ahead and lower the tax rate for everybody. and if you do not work, why would you get a tax refund? let the government spend less money. host: let's hear from our guest. terms of complexity, you sound almost just like the republican presidential candidates talking about how complex our code is and how it needs to be simplified and the fundamental plants out there so far a limited a lot of the parts that are considered very complicated. the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax, some of the proposals have gone after some of the garry cobb located in a national features of our tax -- they complicated international features of our tax code. that gop lot candidates agree on. the second point is spending. that's a very important point. candidates gop presidential plans have cut taxes in some way. they're looking at a world in which the government takes in

less revenue. spending in some way needs to be restrained in order to make those revenues and expenditures matchup. plan, that would be $3.6 trillion at least in a reduction in spending over the next decade. i'm not entirely sure what his spending plans look like, but as for the trump plan, that would $10 trillion to $12 trillion in reduced spending. while that may be possible, that does not team totally feasible to meet -- seem totally feasible to mute because of the discretionary spending that government does you woul. host: we talk about dynamic scoring from time to time, which is a washington term. what does it mean and how does it play into the tax plans? guest: dynamic scoring is the next frontier into looking at how tax policy actually behaves not only revenue wise, but you

are flipping revenue switches and bring more and less revenue, scoring or looking at the economics of taxation not only looks at how it affects revenues firsthand, but how it affects incentives in the economy. if you lower marginal tax rates for a worker, you may work more, thus the economy may expand a little bit more and the tax base may expand a little bit more. this may recoup some of the revenue, definitely not all of it, but this is a way where we can account for the story of stuff. it is an important step that we can take to analyze the full impacts of tax reform. host: i want to get your reaction to this "usa today" lead editorial on wednesday. tax cuts make oil. taxly-sider advocated big cuts in louisiana and kansas,

for example, promising explicit growth. instead, job growth in both states has lied the national average and the lost revenue blue big holes in the states budgets, leading to destructive cuts in education and other vital programs. an analysis last year by the nonpartisan congressional research service found little relationship between tax rates and economic growth. said that claims that economic growth significantly reduces revenue lost to tax cuts do not appear to be justified by the evidence. guest: there are people out considert are supply-siders that may overstate the case a lot. for instance, when there is a debate going on in kansas about the tax cuts, they cut income taxes substantially. made that case to be tax cuts, depending on what they are, do have some influence on economic growth. some more than others. if you look at taxes on capital,

capital is much more mobile. you can save or not very easily. the tax on that activity is much more sensitive. income taxes and especially taxes on wages are not very sensitive. it all depends on what taxes you're cutting, how your structuring your tax cuts. by no means do these plans, especially on the gop side, pay for themselves in any way or come close to this. look at donald trump's tax plan -- $12 trillion cut. when accounting for the economic , you are only seen 10 chilean dollars. there is a $2 trillion gap there. it does not come close to revenue neutral. there is no reason to believe that under any circumstances that very large tax cuts are going to pay for themselves or come close to paying for themselves. it all depends on the size of the tax cut and how you're cutting taxes. that thetor tweets and

trump and bush plans are the definitions of insanity, repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result. jim is calling in from jacksonville, florida -- democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: we are just being scammed. what corporation do you know that pays 39% of what individual pays 39%? for mr. romney was running president, he had to give away money in order to get back to 14%. damne same time, he took a $79,000 deduction for a horse. getting rid of the death tax to give money to their heirs. years and the0 justated from $1000 a year by sitting the death tax. look at how much money he saves.

the whole thing is a scam. if the american people vote for this, they are fools. host: jim in jacksonville, florida. kyle pomerleau? ways: there are certainly in the tax code and a lot of these plans try to get at that that marginal tax rates and average tax rates do not really match up. the reason is for what they are calling loopholes and a lot of these reductions. a lot of these plans, of course, get rid of them. you also bring up another important concern about what is called in washington "this traditional analysis -- distributional analysis." when you have a tax plan, who gets larger cuts than others? that is one important aspect of some of these tax plans because they go after marginal income tax rates, seem to favor those at the top more than those at the bottom. if cuttingration is

those taxes benefits those at the top so much, that must mean that under current law they are paying the most as well. when it comes to across-the-board rate cuts, that is the result that you would expect. , i'm note pomerleau hurt anyone defend the complexity of the tax system, of our tax code. how has it grown to be so complex and is there a solution? can it be changed? guest: that is a very good question. i'm not entirely sure how. as an economist, i would love to have kept it very simple and straightforward and focused only on raising revenue and not a lot of different social policies and economic policies built in. but i think that is what happened. over time, since the last tax reform act, we have put things in the tax code that could be akin to spending policy. we have put in child tax credits

, tax credits for energy, certain deductions for certain economic behaviors. those complicate the tax code. i think that is one the reasons why we are seeing this. more ofhas been used as an economic tool then i revenue raising tool. host: as an economist, how are shattering would it be if we went to a flat tax or we went to the jeb bush plan or the donald trump plan? when everything changed -- would everything changed? e? guest: we would see a lot of great simplification and marginal provisions. they would go away. it would be a lot clear how the tax system would work, especially what is under the flat tax. it is easy to understand the tax system when you're marginal tax rates and average tax rates are pretty much the same. it would not be earth shattering, but i definitely think it would be a great simplification.

to likemoving something a jeb bush tax plan would look like the current tax code, but would have a lot simpler features. host: alton tweets and, all these proposals sound interesting, but their passage depends on congress. which candidate is most persuasive in congress? guest: that's very true. congress is having trouble figuring out small things like the highway trust fund. so it is difficult to see how that aurrent congress lot of these major reform proposals would be pushed through. it is still great to be able to talk about them and sort of pushed the debate on tax reform because it is something that doesn't happen and it is great that candidates are talking about this. host: carl, chicago, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys doing? to i needlittle time

to make two or three points. i've been looking at this historically about progressive cuts during the 1940's. we had basically funded all of world war ii. after the end of the war, we built the world and all japan and still the number one economy in the world could when reagan came in to 1980, that ushered in trickle-down economic sphere 35 years later here on the same show "washington journal," notice that it did not trickle-down. benefited from trickle-down economics. a lot of the stuff is just theory that doesn't work. when they had the tax cuts for butness, they got tax cuts, they do not want to bring income on the taxes. they keep the money outside the country. a lot of this is just theory that has been shown not to work.

like i said, 35 years of reaganomics, trickle-down economics, 90% of america got butkus. we did not get diddley. i would like people to understand that basically what we are doing economically is saying, we want business to not have to pay more of this country anything socially or economically. all we want them to do is just go out and make all the money they can for themselves and they do not have to do nothing for this country. host: carl, what do you do in chicago? caller: pardon me. host: what do you do in chicago? caller: i'm retired. host: from? caller: i used to be a chauffeur. interestingave very points. the first part that you talked about brings up a lot of different things. over a long. eriod of time, not only

has taxation change, but the global economy has well. it's hard to point to broad trends about wages and equality and point specifically at the tax code. if you look at the texaco back in the 1970's and 1960's, marginal rates were very high, but the ability to sell to income was much greater. tax rates are very low. is where theat alternative minimum tax came from, back when they were very high rates. people were very concerned that millionaires were paying very, very low rates could this is back when the to. this is back when the top marginal rate was 40%. tope are more things than marginal rate at play here talk about businesses paying tax. no business actually pays tax. entityal -- a fictional does not pay tax good it is

people who pay taxes. corporations are group of shareholders. they pay tax. a group of consumers pay tax. also, the workers bear the burden of the tax as well. as an economist, i like to remind people of this. when we talk about taxation, we should always remember that at the end of the day that only people pay taxes. host: jonathan is calling a from leesburg, virginia on her independent line. our guest is kyle pomerleau of the tax foundation. caller: kyle made some good points. i do like thinking that i'm a democrat on the social side of republican on the economic side. i'm a low conflicted. -- a little conflicted. the tax proposal that donald trump brought up his social. you know the bush tax cuts still have federal dollars paying for it? it's like the republican party wants to do -- spend less money.

i feel like that would just drive up the deficit even more so. i just want to know if you think it's a good idea to do that or -- i don't know. i want to hear what you have to say. guest: a very important point. a lot of politicians on the campaign trail, what the democrats or republicans or green party, like to promise the good stuff and then leave out the compromises. on the gop side, we talking a lot about tax cuts because that is something that we can improve the government in that way. however, a lot of these tax cuts lose revenue. in a way, they're costing the government. it's better to think about losing revenue. in order to match that up, the spending side has to shrink a little bit. so yeah, it is something candidates have to think about that in the past when tax cuts have gone through, spending has also increased rather than

decreased. that is a very important point. host: what about the concept of everybody paying a so-called fair share? donald trump's plan blows that out of the water. guest: a lot of people cares about that where at least everyone pays at least something. the pending on where you asked left all right, some people believe it is the top paying nothing and some others say the bottom is paying nothing. the reality is that under current law there are a significant number of tax filers that do not pay any individual income tax. this is at the bottom end of the income scale. a lot of people say that is not such a great thing because they do not sort of share the burden. they do not care about government spending as much. that is the issue that i think you bring up there. host: the top 10% of all taxpayers -- what percentage of

taxes do they pay? guest: i believe it is close to 90%. host: 90%? guest: you're talking about top 10% of income earners are paying 90% of the individual income tax. under current law, the individual income tax is highly progressive. that means that there is a group of a few people who are paying most of the individual tax this . this is what the whole taxes and. there are payroll taxes paid payroll taxes paid evenly as well. it's a pretty flat tax the coast to wages and shareholders. the total system is still progressive, but the individual system is very progressive. host: if the corporate tax rate were lowered, with that logicallyt encourage more investment in the united states? guest: yes, the way to think

about this is that you have a corporation out there wondering should i invest more or a bill that extra factory and higher the additional thousand workers necessary to work that factory? they're going to look at their cash flow and they going to take into account the taxation on that additional investment. if the tax rate is 35%, they may look at that and be like hmm, even after this deduction and credit i get from washington state, i'm still negative and not getting enough of a return because of that high corporate -- 35% plus a local tax rate boosting up to 39%. lowering that tax rate reduces the hurdle rate of return that after taxes i do not have to have such a great rate of return on that one investment. maybe i'm going to do that investment. with a lower rate, you will see the marginal investments pop up. an additional factory,

,urchasing additional machinery giving workers a pay raise -- that's have to think about this sort of stuff. host: is one of the downsides to immediate expensing the fact that after a year a company could leave that factory and say, i got my money's worth come off , off i go? guest: i've not thought about that. i do not know if that is actually a concern. if they up and go, there are no longer earnings return on that factory. that's a cost to the business. it's hard to imagine a company saying, i'm going to spend $1 billion on this new investment, take the deduction, which is a deduction just to get costs, the money is out of the door, and sunk cost.ell, now it's like throwing money out of the window. i do not imagine that a

corporation is go to do that, especially where we see that corporations are very profit driven. why would they want to do that? host: steve tweets and, do you hold to the principle that government should get revenue from consumption and sales-value-added taxes? guest: as an economist, i like consumption-based taxes so it does not have to necessarily be a sales or value added tax. the advantage of a consumption tax is that it does not hold a lot of these consequences for investment. under the classic income tax, investment, especially saving in investment, has a little harder than consumption. under a conception tax, you only hitting economic activity one time. the benefit of saying that this is a consumption-based tax and not necessarily a sales tax or value added tax, which could be regressive in nature, you can make in income tax

consumption-based by allowing people to do deduct savings and return savings from progressivend had rates. so conception taxes are not only economically sufficient, but they can be progressive as well. there are a lot of proposals that could be progressive taxes. host: myron in north carolina. please give your question for kyle pomerleau of the text for tax foundation. caller: the 90% at the top paste 90% so that's fair enough. the corporate tax rates compared to other nations, the other formula not placed in his their defense funding. most of the nations that have low corporate tax rates, their defense budget is 4% and less. ours is 20%. we have multiple bases around the world.

the shipping lane is patrolled 90% by the u.s. navy and they are getting a free ride on our defense budget. 2%-3% tariffly a on these countries because they are getting a free ride on defense. we are the number one country in the world shouldering responsibilities and these other people -- they could lower those lattes andave the they could give social services and have universal health care. over here, we have to fight for scraps for the middle class in the lower class. the corporate tax rate -- i'm getting confused. i'm done. [laughter] .ost: all right, myron guest: your first point about

the top 10% on ends about 90% of the income. it is still progressive so it's my flat tax. it is not an equal 90-10 there. as for the foreign policy stuff, i am by no means foreign-policy i can whatsoever, but comment on corporate tax rates around the world . one thing is that corporate tax rates in other countries are lower, but that is not because we are subsidizing those lower corporate tax rates. that is because other countries have moved towards what i was previously talking about -- consumption basis. choosing to have value-added taxes to raise a significant amount of the tax through noon -- revenue. a love people point to the fact that these countries have high of gdps and percentage and one of those reasons is the value added tax. they do not need to rely on the corporate income taxpayer another additional point here

should we raise the same percent from the corporate gdp tax as other countries in the industrialized world. it is not as though corporate tax is raising a lot. it is raising just as much as other countries'corporate tax rates. host: dfw library and tweets and, did the kid on spring just do a romney? corporations are people, my friend? guest: corporations are not people. they are pieces of paper in a filing cabinet probably in delaware. the important point i'm making is that they do not pay taxes simply because they are pieces of paper file somewhere in delaware. that work atple these corporations that end up shouldering the economic incidents of these taxes. host: charles, fort collins, colorado, independent

line. kyle pomerleau of the tax foundation is our guest. caller: this whole tax thing is so confusing and it's kind of insane and a in a way. one thing i've noticed and study in the kenyan asset of taxes is economic multipliers. the tax rateswhen are 70% or 80% when fdr had like was going our country -- you mentioned in the 1960's that there was a 70% marginal rate. becauseere going good the government had money to reinvest in the people like shovel ready jobs for every d was worthste like one dollar some descents and gained money. the republicans say that doesn't exist and it is all just bs and we need to go back to milton friedman supply-sider i'm really

confused to the effective rate -- 17%? i look at history when it was over 40% or 50%, that is when the country is really firing on all cylinders coul. host: charles, we're going to leave it at that first point. a very interesting point guest. guest: tax revenue as a percent of gdp today is slightly higher than tax revenues as a percentage of gdp in the time. that you are talking about. it is not necessarily the amount of revenue that the government is raising that is determining these economic factors. as i previously mentioned, there are a lot of things going on that influence the economy as a whole could you cannot trace it back to tax revenue as a percentage of gdp. may -- is not just how much revenue we raise as a

nation, but how we raise it. if we raise revenue as most european countries do the consumption taxes, that is much more efficient and better for the economy. keynesiane teen multiplier, that may aggregate when you change taxes, but in the long run, the best way to think about tax policy is the influences that taxes have on prices in the economy could over the long run, that's what matters. in the short run, there may be ups and downs from shifting money here and there. in the long run, we're just talking about having a high marginal rate influences the amount of capital in the amount of labor available in the economy. host: the bureau of labor statistics has released the monthly -- or the weekly unemployment rates. here it is.

this is the monthly. september, the unemployment rate remains unchanged nationwide at 5.1%. 142,000.d -- kyle pomerleau, any reaction to those numbers? guest: i do not follow this as closely as a lot of people do. i am one of the tax economist. of a tax economist at the unemployment rate is low and we are adding jobs, not mr. lee at the fastest pace. in the past, we have added jobs faster than that. there have been underlying numbers that have not changed much over the last few years. labor force participation is a little low. historically, there are two factors. one is that people are dropping up for economic reasons and number two is that people are retiring naturally. our labor force is smaller than it was, even though our unemployment rate is improving. a little good, a little that there that there.

host: david in arkansas. your our final caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i lo i love c-span. i'm an attorney, but i've always loved economics. there are two questions i have. the studies of economics have been going through adam smith, milton friedman, and through freedom to choose. hyatt, friedman, and john maynard keynes with all different philosophies. you have studied this all your life. now seems to me that after all this time, there has to be some finite rules that you could write down maybe 10 things or

maybe five things that if you were to say, these things happen we would have good tax policy and if they do not happen , he would have that text policy. i have another question. short onare time. --believe that that leave it at that. when you search a tax code, you to look at how it affects people's behavior. higher marginal tax rates influences people's willingness invest in work. in order to reduce the incentives that you create that may be negative in the economy, it is best to think about creating a tax system that is broad-based and has low marginal rates and raises a sufficient amount of revenue for what the government needs for the spending priorities it has. finally, h robert

woodson, a conception tax hurts the poor and benefits the rich. guest: if it is flat, you can make it for aggressive. consumption taxes are in a way where the rich and up paying a lot. it all depends. sales taxes are certainly considered regressive. and income tax that is based in consumption allows people to deduct the amount of savings. that can be structured in a highly progressive way. is theax foundation.org website should you have analyzed all the plants that are out there, correct? guest: correct. you'll find the analysis revenues and economic impact of the for tax reform proposals out there so far. host: how a nonpartisan are you? nonpartisan. we look to educate taxpayers about good tax policy and the burden of government and that is

taxation. host: d come at it from a conservative point of view more liberal point of view? guest: not really. it is nerdy and boring, but we are looking at just the numbers and the economics. what does economics have to say about taxation? host: kyle pomerleau has been a guest from the tax foundation. coming up next, we're going to talk with the pew survey group about the recent study on immigration to the u.s. in the effect of the 1965 immigration law. how many immigrants have come to the u.s. in the last 50 years -- what was the effect of that love? aw? and where we are headed, . and we will talk to the census bureau about income, poverty, and income rates in the united states. ♪

>> the c-span network features weekend full of politics, nonfiction books, and history. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span, with nasa's announcement of liquid water on mars, we talked to the science experts about the announcement and the possibility in space. business leaders and media personalities discussed what is driving the conversation. speakers include mitt romney and valerie jarrett. tv, marthao's book

kumar discusses her but about presidential transitions. she is interviewed by matt mclarty. on in-depth, we are with nationally syndicated talkshow host thom hartmann, who has authored several books, 2016."ng "the crash of join our three-hour conversation as we take your phone calls, text, you mills, and facebook comment and tweets for thom hartmann. on american history tv on c-span3, in his book "the dead shall rise," the author explosive events of the april 26, 1913 murder of mary fagan in marietta, georgia and your rest and lynching of jewish factory owner leo frank coul ank. and then on real market, the documentary about the supply and demand of fossil fuels in the

u.s. and a look at alternative energy sources. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org. announcer: "washington journal" continues. passel is on your screen and he is with the pew research center. onew report out by pew immigration to the u.s.. what is the top line you want to report? guest: we did has stored. he looking at the 1965 immigration act. emigrants59 million have come to the country in the last 50 years. there are not all here. thoseare 43 million of still here, but immigration accounted for 55% of the andlation growth since 1965 it has had a profound impact on the racial and ethnic composition of the country. host: what was that 1965 law? the 1965 law removed and

national origin quotas that have been in place since the 1920's. those quotas had been set up basically to favor immigration from northern and western europe and to disfavor immigration from other parts of the world. they were directed specifically against southern europe and eastern europe and asians basically were not allowed to comment all and latin american immigration was very limited. remove theely to discriminatory aspects of it. it had a much bigger impact on the country than i think the framers of that legislation envisioned in that they did not envision the large waves of immigration from asia or latin america that have ensued. host: why did that law come into being? guest: it was mainly, from what

i know, a civil rights issue. this was -- we had passed the civil rights act. we had passed a number of anti-discriminatory acts and we had this a very discriminatory immigration law in place. i think there was a view that that was inappropriate for the time. host: let us look at some beach shorts that came with your report. by the way, we're going to be talking about this. one of the lines that we have set aside this morning is for recent immigrants. we want to hear from you as well. (202) 748-8003. otherwise, we have our normal lines divided by political affiliation. you will see those on the screen throughout this first segment of the program. foreign-born projected to hit record milestone but 2065.

by 2065. you have this chart here. -- i'm sorry,965, 1850. 9.7% only of americans were foreign-born, correct? guest: that is correct. 1850 was right after the immigration from mainly ireland and germany. host: that number strikes me as well. guest: that is low by current standards. compared to what it was 50 years ago. in 1965, 4 .8% only were born. waeign guest: that is probably a historic low for the country. and a lot of the discussions today, the 50's and 60's are viewed as the normal period.

between 1870 and 1920, somewhere between 13% of the country was foreign-born and we are right in that range today. host: 14% today projected to go up to 17.7% if the laws do not change. are a lot of assumptions about what is one to happen over the next 50 years. host: who is going to make up the 17.7%? happens in 2065 is that at that point, asian immigrants who are living here will surpass hispanic immigrants in numbers. will accountpanics for about two thirds of the immigrants living here in 50 years. host: they are going to have a majority? guest: that's the immigrant

population. if we look at a total population, no one will have a majority. the white population will be about 46% in 2065. host: when you did this research, that these numbers surprise you? extent.his is to some the surprise that came to me this time is how many emigrants had come to the country over the last 50 years. had roughly 45 million emigrants living in now -- 45 million immigrants living here now, but to arrive at 45 million emigrants, a lot more how to have come because some leave and some died. million since 59 1965 -- does that take into account also illegal immigrants? guest: yes.

we have made our own estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population. in doing the historical analysis and the projections, it is a little complicated to try and separate the flows into those two pieces. forwardespecially going because you have to then make in aptions of enforcement variety of other things. we just treated all immigrants in these projections as one group. host: what are some the policy implications of this increase in the foreign-born in u.s.? guest: i will talk a little bit about that, but i have to say that organization does not make policy recommendations and does not take positions on policies. immigrantsthat the have an impact in addition to the demographic impacts is the

impact of the labor force, the impact of schools. they have a small impact on the ratio of retirees to workers. those are the considerations that go into making an immigration law. what kinds of immigrants do we want in terms of education, and in terms offorce -- workforce, and how the number of immigrants admitted will affect the size of the workforce and the size of the relative to elderly or school-age population? host: this is a chart that the pew research center has put together. immigration on population growth of major racial and ethnic groups in the u.s. 1965-2015. let us start with the hispanic population. you have got to lines here going up to 2015.

million and -- 57 20 million are the two numbers. what are we looking at? guest: 57 million is the estimated size of today's hispanic population. aboutrted out in 1965 at 8 million. it has grown substantially. we did a simulation of what the population would happen had we not gotten any immigrants during this 50 years. had we gotten no immigrants at all, the hispanic population would have grown, but only to about 20 million co. the difference of 37 million is the impact over the last 50 years of new immigrants have a right plus their children and plus we have gone 50 years so there are grandchildren in the calculus in as well. host: the asian population. guest: the asian population --

first of all, there were hardly any asians in the country in 1965. host: 1.3 million. guest: we are not allowed immigration from asia at all since 1906. there were not very many. host: what was your reason for that? do you know off the top? the 1880's, we barred immigration from china completely and that was mainly because of labor disputes in california. in 1906, we cut off immigration from japan. asians --a view that the view of 100 years ago was that some groups were superior to others. highest was the nordic races, people from northern europe. at the bottom where the asians and the jews and the eastern

europeans, so they were not allowed to come. host: 1.3 million asians in the u.s. citizens today is 18 million. their study says that without the 1965 law that would of been 1.6 million. basically almost all the asians here today are because of the 1965 act. and the children born here and the grandchildren. host: black? guest: there is a small impact on the black population of immigration. it is not as big as the other groups. it is getting bigger actually. we have gotten more black immigrants over the last 15 years. host: so the black population and the u.s. -- 1965, 20 one million. today -- 40 million.

without the 1965 law, it would have been 35 million. guest: it is about a third of the growth in the black population that is due to post 1965 immigration. host: and the white population -- 16 2 million in 1965. today, about 200 million. 189 would have been the growth without the 1965 act. guest: the traditional forces of immigration pre-1965 were almost all-white. it was almost all european and canadian migrants. numerically so only about a third of the growth of the white population is due to immigration. host: the number of immigrants coming to the u.s. peaked in 2005. why is that? here ishe big impact

the great recession. that legaled is 7mmigration after 200 decreased a little bit, about 10%, but unauthorized immigration basically stopped. so we have gotten more on authorized immigrants since 2008, but has been balanced by movement out. we saw a significant decline in the rival of new immigrants after 2007. mainly it was hispanic immigrants. the decline was driven largely by decreasing numbers of mexicans and other hispanics coming to the country. jeffrey passel is our guest from the pew research center and the senior demographer there.

you're probably the only guess that we have ever had on "washington journal" who has been selected as a demographic diamond. what does that mean? [laughter] guest: it was a magazine called "american demographics." they looked at demographers who on made a significant impact , from their point of view, over the last 25 years and i was honored to be selected. they went out of business shortly after doing that, so i'm not sure what the impact of that is. host: let us take some calls. 202 is the area code. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. for republicans. (202) 748-8002 four independents. and recent immigrants, we want to hear from you. (202) 748-8003.

let's hear from michael. caller: it seems to me that demography -- we need to link this to the social science aspect of what is happening here. world look across the today, societies that have multiethnic typically have a lot of social problems. it seems to me that although it is not politically correct to look back at what was done before 1965 in restricting certain groups, i think it is fair to say that whatever you let into country, you have to have a program to socialize them , to make them more like the people that are already here so you have social harmony. the question is -- can you think of a society that has this great diversity that also has social

harmony? um, i think our own society fits that very well. you have had a pretty successful history of integrating disparate waves of immigrants over the last 200 years. looking back from the present, we view the historic waves of immigrants as white europeans, but that was not how they were viewed at the time. back atou look writings, contemporary writings, about immigrants in the 1850's, there was a note nothing party that one to restrict immigration -- know nothing party that wanted to restrict immigration because the immigrants were

catholics coming into protestant country. 100 years ago, there was a great concern about the country's ability to integrate italians and jews and poles. looking back, it seems like we have done a good job. thes worth noting that national academy of sciences just issued a report about integration of immigrants that is that two weeksone of their s this current wave of immigrants, which is largely latino and , is, by manysian measures, integrating faster than previous waves of immigrants. it is also important to note that by the second generation, that is, the children of born many there are not

differences between the children of immigrants and the rest of the country. by the third generation, that is, peoples whose grandparents were immigrants, most of these groups are virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the population. host: john, southampton, pennsylvania. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a number of things. i have not called in for a long time. the kennedy act of 1965, immigration bill, mr. castle -- passel is overlooking a number of things. was tovious bill in 1924 keep the existing diversity that existed at the time, to give that the same.

if, for instance, 20% of the population was derived in german immigration, 20% from great britain, 15% from ireland, then the law -- there was a quota for whatever the population. then, totly, obviously maintain the existing ethnic balance of the country, there was radicalism. you recall in history, they were coming from eastern and southern radicalized, the time of the bolshevik revolutions, coming to the united states, causing some social problems. --far as looking down on there is a lot of distorted if you read the actual senators who spoke on the floor of the senate, it is completely different than the

interpretation. may not be aware inut the eisenhower -- early 1950, they returned well over one million mexicans, mexican migrants, back to mexico. kgbas not done like a program. they just want back. john, a lot therefore jeff passel to look at. guest: well, the 1924 act did of maintain the ethnic mix 1920. it maintained the ethnic mix of 1890. so it skipped over the eastern and southern european immigrants and tilted immigration away from what had been the major sources for the 20 years in between.

act, mccarran walter reinforced those quotas. -- the 1965 act was actually revising 1952 legislation that had reinforced those things. the million mexicans were part of a response to what was called program. worker it was instituted during world war ii two supply farm labor. it had been ended in 19 to before. sony 1965 act was an attempt to do with that phenomenon as well. caller'st about the talk about senate action on the war, what the senators were saying in 1965.

an historian of this, but my basic understanding of what the senators, attorney general robert kennedy said, and what did johnson said, when legislation was passed, was that this would not have a big impact. it was an attempt to remove the discriminatory aspects of the law. i don't think they used that term exactly, but it was clearly .hat they were talking about i heard part of one of johnson's speeches where he said basically this would not have a big impact on the lives of americans. host: at the current birth rate, if the u.s. had no immigration, would we be a declining population? guest: not immediately. projections going forward show that we would grow from about

323 million, our current 2 338te, by 2065, million. pretty flat. if you look at the intermediate 2045, itts, by about starts to decline slightly. host: without immigration, does our median age change? guest: a little bit. immigration has some impact on it. the median age will go up regardless, because of aging baby boomers mainly. it is projected to grow to, i believe, 42, and our projections. without immigration, it would go up a be another year. host: brett is calling from washington, d.c. thank you for the pew research center.

there is a lot of irony that need to be solved -- the democratics of not only race that ideology, when it comes to immigration. legislationho decry on amnesty, i think, miss out on the one thing that they would probably disagree with most on the conference of bill. the smart guys in the senate -- schumer talked about it in the session, on the markup of the bill. their discussion was very important, and you can look at that on c-span. , to me, theabout problem being the 10-year delay in identification for people to get e-verified

the irony is our because both howtrums of politics wonder people can control their identification and secure it. you have all these ads on some -- conservative radio about preserving your identity via business, when individuals really need that control. using --dward snowden to secure his future. makingses right now are money hand over fist by using visa overstays. i work in a factory where hundreds of people on visa overstays did not need the money. they were so worried about being deported. and the bosses know that. that is where the solution lie. host: that was brought in washington, d.c. jeff passel. guest: we have not advocated for

policynst any particular positions and we do not talk a lot in here about unauthorized immigration. our estimates are there are policy about 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country .ow that number has not really changed since 2009. there are still unauthorized immigrants coming but they are being offset by those who are leaving. , and it fitsened in with some of the things the caller mentioned, is that the --uthorized ovulation -- population, because we are not getting any new ones, is increasingly a population that has been here for a long time and has put down roots. the unauthorized

immigrant adults have u.s.-born children, for example, and that number is going up. let's look at some more of the charts that came up from the few research center on immigration. settlement of recent arrivals, growing concentration and then dispersion. it looks like new york, california, texas, and florida are getting the bulk of all new immigrants. is that a correct statement? guest: yes, but getting a smaller share than they used to. beginning around the 1990's, immigrants started dispersing from what had been a very area.ional settlement california, new york, florida, illinois were the big ones there. 1990, driven in part by a recession in california, immigrants started moving to different places.

since then, we have seen dramatic growth in the immigrant populations in the southeast come in the midwest. in percentage terms, the fastest-growing immigrant population since 1990 was actually tennessee, but that is in percentage terms. they did not have many in 1990. an immigrant presence in most states in the country. 35, 40 years ago that was not true. host: 1960, all sorts of immigrants came from all sorts of countries, as you can see from this map. minnesota was sweden. i would about norway took that. germany, poland, eastern european, russia. , andhen you look at 2013 mexico dominates the country.

point in60 was a low terms of the immigrant population. we had not gotten many immigrants since 1910. so what you see there is a residue of the immigration waves of the 19th century. sweden is a bigger country then norway, it turns out. .o you get germany tothe middle, from 1850 1890, germany and ireland dominated the immigrant flows. that is what you see in 1960. we have not gotten many immigrants. host: are we still getting immigrants from northern europe in any significant numbers? guest: not in significant

numbers. we break this out by race. the white immigrants represent about 20% of the flows, but that includes people from north africa and the middle east, because those people are considered white. we still get european immigrants but not in numbers that compare asian asian -- major sources, and mexico. quarter represent now a of all the immigrants in the country. it is by far the largest group. the fact that they are around the country goes back to what i was just talking about, the spread of immigrants moving out of california, texas, in the 19 90's, moving to these other places. passel, this 2013 number, probably consistent with today? guest: yes.

host: some border states with canada. el salvador in virginia. cuba, florida. philippines in alaska. and then you have china in pennsylvania. how did that happen? guest: the case of pennsylvania is that no single country dominates, but china supplied the largest numbers. i had not looked in detail at it, but i suspect it is because a lot of universities there. they have a lot of students and professors and some high tech folks there, and not many mexicans is the other piece. dylan calling in from erie, pennsylvania. on a democrat line. caller: how are you? thank you for taking my call. i just have a few comments. 1964. to this country in

it has been well over 50 years. host: from where? guestcaller: india. host: what was the process for you? caller: i came over on a student visa in turn, a medical intern. i would not say there has been profound change, but subtle change in the attitude of my who were openly hostile, those of modern european origin. those of us that came from that part of the world. there was a distinct change, difference in the attitude of americans who were of southern european origin, versus those who were northern european , who were my professional colleagues.

having said that, over the last 50 years, things have changed. right now, of course people from that part of the world are accepted and leaders in many of the fields. in my opinion, it is partly because of the digital age, the world has shrunk, but more importantly, if you look at it, because of india and china and japan, the mother countries which have become economic powers and even competitors to our country here in the united states, that is why the acceptance has been a little more. mexico andty toward the other parts of the caribbean, once again, is because of their native country is still economically not advanced and so forth. so i think that is one of the reasons. we are going to leave it

there so we can get some more callers in. in this report, we include some information from opinion polling that my colleagues did. caller is right, that different groups of immigrants argue differently -- are viewed differently. if immigrants in certain heirs of the country made things worse or better. there is a very positive view of immigrants from asia. 47% of people view asian immigrants positively, only 11% negatively. european immigrants are viewed basically the same way. at the bottom are immigrants from the middle east. only 20% of people say they have made positive contributions versus almost 40 that's a negative. latin american immigrants are

not much more favorably viewed than the middle eastern immigrants. is joyce lynn in woodbridge, virginia. caller: hello, peter. i have a question for you, mr. passel. noticed, in your surveys that you did at the pew institute, i did not see anything about the .merican indians i know that a lot of the american indians were here in the country. it came to my knowledge also not too long ago that there were many black people who were here mixed in the indian population prior to the middle of the slave passage. ifanted to know from you

these people were allowed to enjoy the liberty and freedom's that the constitution now talks about. what would that population look like today? i'm also interested to know. right now, america is a white-ruled nation. this? you feel about do you feel this is the way it is supposed to be, this is what the founding fathers intended for america? is there any kind of a conscience among the american whites as far as the wealth? about theall of this babies being killed and all of that, it seems that that is a way to keep certain populations in check. ast: we are going to get

comment from jeff passel from the pew research center. where are you from originally? caller: i am from the caribbean, a tiny island, so tiny you can hardly see it on any map. host: what is it called? caller: montserrat. include in the production the native american and alaskan indian populations. in percentage, it is rather 1%, less the order of than 1% of the population. it is included in our projections. it is not a population that is very much affected by immigration, so our focus in this report was the impact of immigration. by 2055, the pew research center finds the u.s. will have no racial or majority group.

today, 62% of the population is white, 12% lack, 18% hispanic, 6% is asian. by 2065, 14% will be asian, 24% hispanic, 13% black, and 46% white. here comes inange the white population. guest: that is right. the white population today is relatively old and our projections allow for immigration of whites, but it is not a large number compared to the 200 million whites that are cured today -- here today. white birthrate is not very high. it is not the lowest. actually, the asian birth rate is lower.

the combination of low birth , relatively low immigration, and the relatively in numericion means terms, it is not growing as fast as the others. host: paula, ashfield -- asheville, north carolina. caller: i have a few things i want to say. i will try to keep it short. that statistic peter just gave me really scared me. in 2025, no majority? isis andxactly what people in other countries want to happen. we are destroying ourselves, and i will tell you why. we have too much diversity. we are bringing in people with their own views, they do not want to do things are according to how america was set up. they want their own language, the social programs. we keep giving everything away.

if there is going to be no 2025, you think we have school shootings now, people will be fighting, we will not have a common language. we are going to be just like the middle east, and i do not understand why people do not understand that you need to put a moratorium on it. we need to settle people down. generations,gh the you can become more americanized, let's say, but we keep bringing in people that just keep wanting more and more. i will tell you, i am glad i'm 65 because i don't want to see what will happen in the future. i think it is horrible that we are not enforcing our laws. for every person here illegally, they should be deporting them and bringing in the people that have a bided and waited to come

into this country for years. paul in asheville, north carolina. any comment? first of all, the date of no majority is 2055, not 2025. data that i cited, our own data, show that over half of the immigrants speak english very well or only. it takes time for immigrants to learn english. the fact that we have new that it caneans distort that figure a little bit . the academy report found immigrants are integrating just as fast as they have historically. wild and wonderful tweets in, what we need is a significantly declining birthrate worldwide.

our birthrates around the world different than they are here? guest: yes, they are, and they have been coming down. the birthrates in the united states, for a developed country, are fairly high. our current fertility rate is right around 1.9 children per woman, which is below what we demographers call replacement levels. in the long run, if you have 1.9 children per woman, your population will decline. our birthrate is high relative to europe and japan and china. it is low relative to africa and other parts of the world. overall, the fertility rates are coming down. in some cases, quite dramatically. mexico is a country i have .tudied some in 1970, the fertility rate in

mexico was right around seven children per woman. 2.2, which isto only a little higher than that in the u.s. itself is an example of the changes we are undergoing. host: sean is calling in from brooklyn. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. tomother and i were blessed be allowed to come to the united states in the 1960's -- host: from where? family is from haiti, under the persecution of the duvalier regime. i want to say thank you to the united states for a long us to come in. since i have been entered as a child through the normal process of applying and getting a green card before i came to the united , ites and the proper process was able to get a good education in the united states, became an

engineer, worked for many corporations, and i believe i contributed to my country, the united states of america. the care that the country showed my family allowed me to come to the united states and have a good life as compared to the persecution i had in haiti. my point is, when a country cares, you will get people from all over the world wanting to come to the united states. good people that want to contribute and make the united states great. thank you so much and accretion you allow me to speak. host: jeff passel. story that is a very nice . flows,k of immigrant historically, have been through legal channels, and it is people wanting to come here.

escaping persecution, we have been a refuge for people from many parts of the world. within the last 50 years, we have gotten large flows from southeast asia, from russia, the aiti, and it is part of our immigration policy to admit refugees from around the world. ewresearch.org if you want to read more. jeff passel has been our guest. census bureau came up with one of our largest reports of the year on poverty, income, and health insurance rates in the u.s. that is next on "the washington journal." ♪

>> sunday on q&a -- >> the supreme court is more than just its opinions. to understand it fully, you need to know about the justices backgrounds, personalities, their personal dynamics, with each other and with their clerks. >> national law journal supreme court correspondent, tony mauro, on the cases featured and the supreme court's new term. that is sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. on monday, as the supreme court starts a new term, c-span debuts its new series, landmark

decisions. we take a look at the real story behind the famous marbury versus madison case, donning into the political battles between john adams, the new president thomas jefferson, and the newly appointed chief justice john marshall. established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in his famous decision he wrote in marbury versus madison. >> barberi versus madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> joining the discussion, a yell law school professor. and 12k cases, explore historic supreme court rulings. cases premieres this monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case will you watch, order your copy of

the landmark cases companion book available at www.c-span.org . a signature feature of book tv is our all-day coverage of the heirs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule. early october, the southern festival of books in nashville. the weekend after that we are live in austin for the texas book festival. at the end of the month, we are covering two book festivals. from the nation's heartland, the wisconsin book festival. on the east coast, the boston book festival. at the start of november, we are in portland, oregon for word stock, followed by the national book awards in new york city. at the end of november, we are live for the 18th year in a row in miami or the miami book fair international. that is a look at a few of the book fairs this fall coming up

on book tv. this is "washington journal" america by the numbers segment. we look at the statistics that are involved in forming our nation. today, we are going to look at the u.s. census bureau's new report out on income, poverty, and health insurance. this is one of the census bureau's largest reports of the year. joining us is jennifer cheeseman day of the u.s. census bureau and jim tankersley of the washington post. he covers economic policy or that newspaper. , one of theey things i wanted to start with here is the uninsured rate, from 2008 22014, of americans when it comes to health insurance. 14% to 10%. it does not seem very significant. caller: to the contrary --

guest: to the contrary, it is a huge significance. the biggest drop we have seen year-over-year. there is probably a pretty big reason, the affordable care act. like this is the first really large instance that we are seeing now year-over-year of the obamacare health care law getting coverage to people who did not have it, which was the design of the law. there are a lot of other things about the law that are controversial, but in this particular instance, is it improving expanding health care coverage for americans who did not have it? absolutely it appears to be going on and is a huge element for lower and middle income americans. host: jennifer cheeseman day, is this one of the larger drop you have seen in your studies? caller: it is. on slide six, you can see we have two measures of uninsured here. one is the current population,

the lower line, and the longer running survey is the american community survey. decline in therp percent uninsured between 2013 and 2014. after a fairly stable period since 2008, when we started measuring in the american community survey. startedwhen we measuring in the american community survey. we have been collecting population in the current population survey but we had a questionnaire change in 2013. but in the long-term, we have never seen such a change from year to year as we have in this last period. host: has this number been pretty steady at 14%, 15%? we seewe have, but as between 2008 and two thousand 13, it is very study. host: prior to that? guest: you do not see year-to-year changes, historical changes like this.

very small changes typically. things trending up or down, but you don't see a sharp change. either there is some kind of economic shift or there is a demographic change or just momentum changing, or you have a policy change. for instance, you see with a demographic shift, people entering the age of 65 and older, baby boomers moving into that, so you see the number of people receiving medicare are going up. you are seeing that and will continue to see that. but that does not happen in such a sharp change as you see here. tankersley, real median household income, 1967, 2 2014, in $2014, 1967, $44,000. in 2014, median household income is $53,000. guest: there are two big stories in these numbers.

i write a lot about this and this is just a very disturbing trend in the last several years and over the last 25. the shorter-term trend is that we had a recession, people lost a lot of income, which is what happens in recessions. it ended, and what tends to happen is that incomes go back up, but that has not happened. we have an economic growth, almost 5% unemployment, and even with all that, median household income has not but -- bunched, which means the typical american household is earning the same, adjusted for inflation, as when the recession ended, actually less. that is a very anomalous recovery from recession. put that in the context of the last 25 years, we are in 1989 levels basically. that is not the america that wereamericans thought they in, that is not the economy we all thought we had.

we had a lot of growth, close to 80% growth in the economy, real growth in that time, and yet, 25 years no change in the median household income. host: and every blue line you see in the chart is a recession or downturn in the economy. figure, itok at this is constant dollars, but didn't $44,000 in 1967 by a lot more than $53,000 today? guest: the way you should think about it is, that is not actually $44,000 in 1967. that is -- if today's prices have been around in 1967. people do have more buying power today than they had in 1967. that is a good thing. on a percentage basis, that is really good. hand, over 50er years, it is not.

look at the growth from 1967 until basically the end of the 1990's. increase. very big then the recession of 2000, a weak recovery there, followed by another recession, combined to wipe out all the gains basically of the clinton years, and we are back to the start of the george h.w. bush years in terms of progress. host: we are talking about the census bureau's income, poverty, and health insurance report for 2014. we have divided our lines by income level. under, --e 50 and to 100,000 -- --you make over $100,000 we want to do divided this way

to get a different perspective on the issues we are talking about. we have looked at health insurance, household income, and a third category his poverty. poverty rates by age. jennifer cheeseman day, this is what struck out to me, the drop in elderly poverty. guest: if you compare this year to 2013 estimates, there is no change in poverty, no change in the three age categories that we show on the graphic. but if you look at over the long 1959,and it goes back to when we started collecting poverty estimates, you can see a real shift in the three age groups that we have here. 1959, the population, 65 and older, had the highest poverty rate at 35%. the lowest party rate was four people at&t oh 64, with children

in between at 27%. over time you have seen a shift. 625-year-old poverty rate declined during this period. today about 10% in poverty. compared with the children under 18 at 21, double their poverty rate. children under 18, the blue line. currently 21% of children under 18 are living in poverty, or at a poverty level. but that was 27% in 1959, correct? years,64, your working 17% in the poverty area in 1959, 13% today. these three figures added together, multiply it, divide it, what is the poverty rate in the u.s. today? total poverty rate is

14.8%, which represents about 46.7 million people. host: what was the poverty rate overall in 1959? guest: i don't know offhand. host: jim tankersley, analyze these figures for us. guest: it shows a couple of things. over time, it shows the enormous progress we have made in reducing elder poverty. have hade recently, we a real spike in child poverty, which is a problem, directly attributable to the recession and its aftermath. we are starting to see that come down a little bit. reporter, this is just income. it does not include the benefits you get from the government that helps you live in poverty. what this shows is we have had, since 1980 basically, rough luck try to get the market to work better to deliver higher incomes for people. all the efforts of the government has made to pull

people out of poverty, the so-called war on poverty, has not resulted in higher incomes being delivered to people working. think that is a big take away here. something that you will hear a lot about in the presidential campaign, republican candidates in particular, have been critical on the war on poverty as being ineffective and proposing market-based solutions to deliver better outcomes to people, as opposed to government spending programs. day, jennifer cheeseman from year-to-year, there has been significant drops in these poverty rates. what has affected those? do you look at what is affecting these rights? part, wer the most like a poverty and we have a measure in the current population survey. we go out in the spring and as people about their well-being of the prior year. we have been collecting since the late 1950's in the current

population survey. it gives us a great tool to see year-to-year changes, and especially changes over the long term. take some calls. we discussed income, health insurance rates, and we have looked at party as well. billions picked for -- bill in pittsburgh, on the 50000 and underline. caller: here i go again being first off. i wanted to be responsive to the discussion. the one point that interests me of income recovery after this recession. i wonder if your guests could discuss the question of what jobs there are to do? i am calling from pittsburgh, formally the steel industry. host: are you employed? ? caller: no, i am retired.

i was a lawyer. host: that sounds like a policy question and i don't think we will have the census bureau answer that, so we will turn it to you. caller: it's an interesting question about the economy now and we see fear of manufacturing jobs, as bill was talking about, a larger trend in the economy, and more service jobs. more things in restaurants, people working in retail. in general, we are hoping the economy can start soon. we seem to be hoping every month, to see more higher in service jobs. shift of manufacturing to services in general is a long-term structural shift. in this recession, recovery from a hopeon, there had been from the obama administration that we would have a lot more high-paying manufacturing jobs. so far, we are well short of the president school for that job creation. , on ourna, san diego

over $100,000 line. californiaas born in , back in the 1950's. i went into the security industry. i have seen life from just about every perspective, doing poor people security systems to wealthy actors security systems. i remember back when i was a kid running around in the 1980's, i was making a dollars an hour. i have watched immigration absolutely destroy this country. it drops everything. down.ps all the wages it has more poverty everywhere. we have got to stop this immigration. we have to stop all of it. every person you bring into this country, it stagnates wages. it has to stop. if it doesn't, our country is doomed. host: what kind of work do you do, are you retired now?

i am not--caller: retired. i'm am 59 and i climb ladders. i have to keep working on my pension. i do security and surveillance systems. i have done them for everyone you can think of. for movie stars on tv, rock stars, actors. everybody you have seen on tv. and i have done it for poor people. i see life from a huge perspective. i know exactly what is happening in this country. you have to stop emigrating people into this country. linda cheeseman day, do you look at immigration as a factor in these rates at all in your studies of the census bureau? we do collect information about nativity, whether someone was born in the u.s. or not. we do look at income and poverty and health insurance by

nativity. host: do you find varying rates of foreign-born and us-born? guest: today we yes, we do. i don't have those numbers in front of me. host: roger tweets in, has the affordable care act affected the poverty rate one week or the other? guest: the poverty rate between last year did not change. at the same time that the health insurance rate went down. host: charlie is calling in from new jersey. to $100,000. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am calling in -- just to give you some facts. i think obamacare is just killing the health insurance industry. there might be more people that were not covered that are covered now, but they are

, so theynder medicaid were not paying before, they have no insurance, and now they technically have insurance but are still not paying. i want to bring up an example by my nephew. he makes $85,000 a year as an engineer. he has three kids. his wife is pretty sickly but not sick enough to be on disability. she just has a long-term job. i just recently visited them in the hospital. he was worried about his insurance. andas a $10,000 deductible weeks. $690 every two basically, he is putting out $18,000 between the $10,000 that he has got for deductibles, and

then his payments every couple it comes out to about $18,000 out of his pay. and then when that is all paid, he still has 20% of the bill to pay for another gap. how can you possibly survive when you have any kind of sickness? host: that is charlie in new jersey. mr. tankersley. guest: this gets into the deeper issues that are raised by the affordable care act. caredability and access to , it is wanting to have coverage, it is another to have has age that you feel portable payment options for you and they want enough spectrum of the kind of payments you want, independent services you want. on the other hand, i do want to take on one of the things you said earlier. it is not just medicaid that has

been expanded. census numbers are clear. it is also people buying insurance often individual marketplace, which we have not seen a lot of. guest: that's correct, if you which shows the change from 2014 to 2015 by health insurance, the overall change with health insurance, on the right-hand side, the second bar down, those with health insurance, 2.9%. then we break it up underneath that by the type of health insurance that they had. ,ny private plan is the first dark green line. the second one below that is the direct purchase. people who receive direct purchase are buying health insurance either directly from the insurance plan, or they went through the marketplace exchanges. host: as a result of the

affordable care act, and over 2% increase in people buying health insurance. guest: that is correct. almost 3%. however, employer-based, which is where most people get their , most peopleough get it there, about 55% receive their health insurance that way. we did not see a statistical change between last year and this year. dropped just a tad. guest: was not statistically different. then we go to government insurance plans, which is the next set. that increased by 2%, driven mostly by expansion of medicaid. some medicare increase. jim tankersley, why the medicare increase at 2%? guest: under the affordable care act, states get incentives to expand medicaid so that people with higher incomes than before

are eligible for it. not every state did that. supreme court said they did not have to. the states that have expanded the eligibility have seen a large increase in the number of people who are on medicaid. that has translated into, on average, much larger increases in people with insurance in the states that expanded medicaid, than those that did not. host: joyce is calling from camden 10, missouri, under $50,000. agree with everything that previous callers have said, manufacturing has gone overseas. the people we are bringing in from india and other countries are working for lesser ranges than previous employment rates, and immigration is killing us. you said mexico or latino immigration, one point something children.

here in my area it is an average of four or five. parents come here illegally. they have no education and work at menial jobs which cannot afford -- they cannot even afford themselves, and then they start having children. stairstep children in groceries here. i was in my grocery store the other day and watched people sending money back to mexico. anyway, these people go on welfare and medicaid because they cannot afford insurance any other way. my family, with children, their premiums have gone up astronomically, and at the -- deductibles have gone up astronomically. they cannot afford it. they make too much to go on medicaid. you talk about incentives. incentives are paid for by taxpayers out of tax money. we cannot afford to take in all of these people. they are going to be bringing in

hundreds of thousands of syrians . and we are going to be taken care of them medically, financially, housing, and everything else. becausey is suffering of the huge dr. bowles and copayments, and monthly premiums. we are suffering while we are trying to help everyone else who is not a citizen. joyce in missouri, we got the point. mr. tankersley? guest: i would say joyce is reflecting the anger and frustration you see in the american electorate now, in a particular part, particularly in the conservative base. this is a big factor behind the rise of donald trump's polls. i would also say the economic literature on this is much more mixed than the callers have reflected so far. for a simple reason. immigrants that come in do not just take services and do not just drain money. they also generate economic activity.

are research questions about their effects on wages, even in the literature that is most sympathetic to what the callers are arguing, they find the effects are largely confined to the lowest educated americans, the ones whose wages are suppressed by immigrant workers. in general, non-native born workers -- americans work more, at a higher rate, than nativeborn americans, and do generate economic activity, too. but when you have not had a raise in 25 years and you are frustrated by health premiums going up, you can ask bluefly look around and see other people who you feel are a drain on your resources and be upset even i think that is clearly what is happening in the country, in particular, in the conservative base. host: marie in the bronx, over $100,000. caller: hello, it is maddie,

actually. host: thank you, ma'am. did that graph take into account all of these females who are refusing to get married through the government, to report their marriage, their very rich husbands are making tons of money that they are not claiming. these kids have cars, nice sneakers, they are living better than my autistic kids. host: are you talking about the poverty rate? yes, the poverty rate of children. i have seen an influx in my neighborhood a lot of these mexican women who own homes, they have everything i have. my husband is busting his asked to work and paying more and more for health care and we are barely making ends meet. host: jennifer cheeseman day, how do you measure poverty in the u.s. once more?

guest: we go out in the spring each year and ask people about their earnings and income and we collect a variety of different kinds of income, ask about a variety types of income, and then we determine from their what percentage of people are in poverty. everybody in our survey is asked, a representative survey across the united states. this is the same server that goes out every month and collects information for the unemployment rate. in the spring, we have extra questions about income. host: how do you collect the income rate? guest: we ask people what their earnings were, what kind of interest they have. host: is it the same group of people that you are asking about poverty? guest: yes, people in the current population survey, which is not in the field all the time, and we rotate people in and out of the survey. host: how many people participate in that? west: in the measures

collect, usually about 100,000 households. thoseand you also ask same 100,000 households about their health insurance. guest: correct. host: i want to show another chart, again from the census bureau's report on income, poverty, and health insurance rates. a very confusing title, but tell me if i'm interpreting correctly. in 1967, 43% of females worked outside the home. today, 61% work outside the home. is that correct? guest: that is not correct. this is confusing. what this is looking at is the percent of people who are working, how many are working full-time. of those that are working, 43% of women in 1967 worked full-time. the remainder worked part-time. you can see with the males at 69% in 19 627, today and 74.

host: this is just working population. guest: of the present working, who are working full-time. all year round, 40 hours a week or so. you can see, it is a much steeper incline. host: 61% of all women working our full-time. 74% of all men working our full-time and what is the significance of these numbers? guest: both of these numbers went up in the past year by 1% which shows the labor force is more engaged, more people working full-time. host: jim tankersley, what is the significance of these numbers? guest: people are working more in america, and yet, still not getting ahead. this is one of the things -- when we think about a household or family income, over time, you can see an increase over the last quarter-century or 30 years, but if you break it down

into the amount of hours worked, you find the extra hours worked outpaced the extra income people have gotten. it is a great thing for the economy that so many women have entered the labor force, particularly because women are attaining skills at a higher rate than particularly when compared to japan which has not seen that trend, but for all of that extra work and the next a benefit that women are bringing to the labor force by entering it, a typical household is not seeing the returns you would hope for. host: this is the census bureau poverty,ncome, insurance coverage, medium income, 2014 according to the --sus bureau, $53,000 $700 $53,700. overall, about 14%, 46 million