progressive change campaign committee. and lot professor stephan us to this will talk about his cover story on mass incarceration america. ♪ headlines seem to agree, hillary clinton and bernie sanders dominated the debate last night. we turn to you to get your thoughts this morning. who won the debate? who has momentum? will this change the race in 2016? republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. send us a tweet, go to facebook or send us an e-mail. good morning, everyone.

we will get to your thoughts in just a minute. about theu think debate? bernie sanders and hillary clinton dominated. we turn to all of you, go outside of washington to get your thoughts on this. let's begin with one moment from last night's debate when hillary clinton was asked about whether or not she is a progressive. [video clip] hillary clinton: i'm a progressive, but i'm progressive enough to get things done. i know how to find common ground and stand my ground and i approved that in every position ipad. -- i have had. dealing with republicans who never had a good word to say about me. we found ways to work together on everything from reforming foster care and adoption's. i have a long history of getting things done, rooted in the value i've always had. askedbernie sanders was

to explain socialism. [video clip] bernie sanders: we will explain what democratic socialism is. what democratic socialism is t ist is saying i morally wrong but the top 10 of as muchis country own wealth as the bottom 90%. it is wrong today in a rigged economy that 57% of all the income is going to the top 1%. when you look around the world, you see every other major country providing health care to all people as a right come except the united states. you see every other major country saying to moms that when you have a baby, we will not separate you from your newborn baby because we are going to have medical and family paid

leave like every other country on earth. the principles i believe in and i think we should look to countries like denmark, like sweden and norway and learn from what they have accomplished with their working people. host: bernie sanders from last night's debate. we get your thoughts on it. who won last night's debate? fredericksburg, virginia. republican. caller: of course, hillary .linton won bernie sanders came in second. everyone else was a joke. had any republican debt anything close to what hillary clinton had done, they would have been in jail. we will always be a democratic nation due to the illegal immigration in our country. freebies and goodies will go to

all those who are democrats. host: what questions did not get asked of her? caller: about her server. they did not ask. about her server. host: what do you think when we are sickrs said of hearing about these e-mails and that seems to close the door on it, the discussion being brought up, at least last night? caller: that was a planned question. i'm sure they had corresponded before getting on stage to do that. what full would not have done that? fool would not have done that? dogs run in packs. it's just like banking stocks. one is going to go down, the other will go down. one will go up, the others will go up. horribly come

incredibly corrupt world. andonder all the iranians iraqis look at us with such disdain. our morals come our ethics are out the door. that if you think hillary clinton wins the nomination that she will pose a great challenge to whoever is the republican nominee? republican could beat hillary clinton if she gets the nomination? caller: i don't know that she could. immigrantsillegal that are going to be allowed to cast votes. everybody needs to understand, the reason we have the immigration problem we have is so that the democratic party can arrive at a station -- when you get free food and free cars and free jobs, free everything, why

would you ever go back to doing the correct thing? host: we will move on. from npr, they have a record of who spoke for how long. hillary clinton dominating with 30 minutes. bernie sanders at 27 minutes. the other three candidates not getting as much time. martin o'malley with 17 minutes. with 15 and lick in jv coming in last with only nine chafee comingcoln in last with only nine minutes. caller: i think it was a great debate. hillary clinton and bernie are great candidates. your previous caller seemed like the typical republican. i thought it was a great debate. very refreshing and positive.

it was not like school children like the republican debate. host: who is your candidate? caller: i would say slightly hillary clinton. if bernie sanders whence come i will support him, to o. host: are you concerned that a self-declared socialist could win in a general election? caller: what is this thing about socialism? every time somebody wants to change the system, we always the civilm -- even to rights time, it was always a communist conspiracy. we are borrowing money from the largest commonest country in the world. as somebody comes up with great ideas and changes, that is fine with me. i don't know if anybody needs to bury worried -- to be worried. host: candy in iowa.

independent. did last night's debate move the needle at all for you? caller: down to zero. they congratulated themselves, they patted each other on the back. like they are supposed to. everything is supposed to be free. there will never be a check at the end of dinner. who is supposed to pay the bill? us. who will pay the bill for all the free education? everything is going to be free. the roads, the bridges, the schools. everything will be free. i hate that word. host: because that is what you heard from the candidates last night. caller: yes, i did. host: who is your person, then? who are you getting behind? caller: right now, i'm still waiting to see who comes out on

top. like last time around, i will vote for the lesser of two evils. that's where i am right now. like you would lean more republican. is there a republican you would like right now? caller: right now? with republicans right now because i want havingy to -- instead of a two-step answer to a five mile problem, i want somebody to rip the band-aid off. it will hurt immediately, but it will heal in the long-term. host: john in texas. democrat. caller: i think hillary did great. party,as the republican there is no republican who is a leader.

they turned to the house of representatives and 20 animal house. bombed iraq for six years nonstop. the house ofd representatives into an animal house. i will never vote republican because of that. host: our first caller mentioned the e-mail server and the exchange that bernie sanders and hillary clinton had over this. let's show you that moment. [video clip] [applause] bernie sanders: let me say something. may not be great politics. i think the secretary is right. the american people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails. [applause] class -- let me

say something about the media as well. i go around the country, middle-class is collapsing, we have 27 million people living in policies haverade cost of millions of these and jobs. the american people want to know what is going to happen with the oligarchy as a result of citizens united. enough about the e-mails. let's talk about the real issues facing america. [applause] that was a moment last night where bernie sanders said the country is sick of hearing about these e-mails. the wall street journal editorial saying this morning that the democrats last night gave hillary clinton a pass.

the editorial board goes on to say this.

the debate performance by bernie sanders proved he is too far left even for most democrats. unless vice president joe biden joins the race, the democratic party's clinton coronation is back on schedule. alice in new jersey. a democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i thought hillary clinton this great. -- did great. bernie sanders is an independent. d in front ofck a his name. he has never been a democrat. he does not want to join our party but he is up on stage with us. he is so far out. he things everything is for free. hillary clinton did not say that. host: you sound like you are a

supporter. what do you make of the -- she has changed her positions on and othere trade debates? .aller: she explained it to what -- the keystone pipeline. she never gave a position on it. she gave a position after she learned everything about it. deal, she was for that at the beginning. when it was finalized and part of it had to do with the with the chinese did notshe said now she

know that, it never came out until now, so she's against it now. they never questioned anybody in the republican -- two or three debates they've had. nobody questions them when they change their mind. i think hillary will come out on top. she will win. bernie sanders will never win going up against the republicans. he is not a democrat. host: may i ask how old you are? review for hillary clinton in 2008? caller: i voted forcaller: president obama twice. i wish you could stay in power. but hillary sounds like she will he has screamed over this country's

airports, roads, bridges, everything needs to be redone. when they say it on the other side, donald trump says it, that is a great idea. do you want joe biden to get into this race? caller: only if hillary clinton is -- if something happens to her, which i doubt. said,now true what they this was all being done to attack hillary clinton. storysomehow, this e-mail does not disqualify her. caller: if something happened with her, yes, he should get in. if not, no. there is no necessity for them to do that. i want to say with the benghazi, yes, it

was terrible. i wish they would be so attacked when we were and where was my military when my friends were killed in the trade center? host: curtis in montana. republican. caller: good morning. webb won the jim debate. the rest of them were trying to see who could get the furthest left of bernie sanders. i think jim webb would be the that was even close to becoming a candidate. the rest of them, the democratic party -- host: who do you like in the republican field? caller: i have not decided that yet.

i'm just not sure yet. host: sean in pennsylvania. democrat. who won the debate? caller: i say hillary clinton won it. host: why? caller: i just think she is the best candidate for the democratic party. as an african-american, we don't have no color up there. blacks are the majority of the democratic party and it's like we're not being represented. i would hope hillary clinton would get a black or latino vice president. that would encourage our majority. hampshire, once you start getting into the multiracial states, hillary numbers go up tremendously because blacks and latinos are going to support

her. , the blacksite vote and latinos and nations and all the other races and the gays will carry the democratic party. it seems like the white vote don't even matter to us no more. with the argument about the clintonte, hillary should focus on getting her silent majority out. who are some african-american or latino names you can give us that you would like to see on the ticket with her? youer: i really can't give know names because they are not putting themselves out there. alfredo in indianapolis. democrat. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: i think bernie sanders and hillary was a close second. host: why do you think he won?

caller: he appeals to the millennials and tells the truth. he doesn't have any mud on him. he really appeals to the people feel like enough is enough and we need to take government back, we need super pacs out of our government. host: deborah, you are on the air. i think it was the normal government bs and political bs. all they are saying all the time is they did not give any substance of how and why.

they did not say anything last night, all the candidates of you try to avoid the benghazi thing and all the lies and such and such. i don't trust, i don't think anybody really trusts -- why would we put something like that in an office of the president? that's just lies and deceit. host: there is more to come on the benghazi investigation. the committee is continuing its work. hillary clinton will be testifying before the panel next week. go to www.c-span.org for more details on our coverage of that hearing on thursday, october 22. hillary clinton on capitol hill to testify about what happened in benghazi. jane in new jersey. independent. caller: hi.

how are you today? impressed that so many people have so many subjects discussed at length. i felt the debate flew by. i was very impressed with bernie sanders. i was impressed with how everybody handled themselves, complete sentences and complete thoughts when they spoke. i was very impressed with bernie sanders. he had my attention already. between himce i see and hillary clinton, he is casting a vision. hillary clinton has taken positions on issues. i think she is approaching it in a very workman like way. she reminds me too much of politicians who say we can take things on and then they get to washington and they say you up with on that. -- you have to wait on that. host: what gives you confidence

that bernie sanders can do what he says he wants done? thing, he isne casting a vision. some of his platforms are not that important to me, when he talks about colleges, but i understand what he is saying. we have a public education system that goes to great wealth and he thinks it should go to grade 16. 12 and he thinks it should go to great 16. i am a gun safety person. when he talked about guns, he was so misunderstood, he believes in coalitions. if i can get the rural people in america and urban people to come they canon the things agree on, i have a coalition and we could have more conversations. he has thought through how we can make the vision happened.

he will still pursue with passion the things he is talking about now. candidates any other , a passion for a vision. positions onking existing subjects. host: i want to show our viewers that moment when bernie sanders talks about his position on guns. [video clip] sanders: a d-, let's understand that back in 1988 when i first ran for the united states congress, i told the gun and people of the state of vermont, i supported a ban on assault weapons. i have strongly supported instant background checks, doing away with the terrible gun show loophole. we have to move aggressively in dealing with the strong been

purchases. there are thousands of people in this country today who are suicidal, or homicidal, but cannot get the health care they need because they do not have the insurance or they are too poor. mentaldy has to get health counseling immediately. this was a large and complicated bill. there were positions that made sense. do i think a gun shop in the state of vermont that sells legally a gun to someone and that someone goes out and does something country, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? i don't. where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, we should take action. host: bernie sanders asked about his position on guns.

the follow-up came from anderson cooper. he asked hillary clinton if bernie sanders has been tough enough on this issue. [video clip] >> no, not at all. we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. this has gone on too long and it's time the entire countries to against the nra. -- stood up against the nra. [applause] >> even the majority of gun owners support background checks. senator sanders did vote five times against the brady bill. more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented. for thisid vote immunity provision. i voted against it. it was not that complicated to me. it was pretty straightforward to me that he was going to give immunity to the only industry in america -- everyone else has to be accountable, but not the gun

manufacturers. we need to stand up and say enough of that. five democrats squaring off last night at the first democratic debate. that exchange over gun control between the two front runners -- donald trump was live tweeting during the debate last night. some reaction he had. here is some reaction on twitter

from our audience. twitter put out some data on last night's debate. how folks were reacting. most mentioned candidates on waster -- bernie sanders first with 41%, hillary clinton with 39%. we cameretweeted debate from bernie sanders and then donald trump.

ryan in michigan. democrat. good morning to you. i will move on to stephen and oklahoma. republican. caller: good morning. points.hree real clear i noticed the head of the employees union said they did vegas,is debate in las don't you think that was -- point about the benghazi thing. everybody knew she was going to be the candidate, they tried to , they try toom her

neverl these e-mails, you agree to give all the e-mails up. , the parentsit is and families of the ones that died in libya demanded an investigation. it wasn't republicans. people had information on it. they was trying to keep her from saying anything. already had him in my mind. businesses giving people $15 an hour minimum wage -- you know how many people you going to put out of business?

--macare was granted to them host: we will talk about what bernie sanders and others have to say about the economy. to gop presidential candidates coming up on the washington journal. the crowd was a democratic friendly crowd in las vegas. the union, a large union in that area because of the casino restaurant industry. there are more debates coming up. this is from the washington post this morning, the next date, october 28 at the university of colorado at boulder, gop debate and 8:00 p.m. eastern time. this is being sponsored by cnbc. november 10 in milwaukee, another gop debate.

democrats square off again on november 14 in des moines, sponsored by cbs. on the first debate for republicans on october 28, bobby jindal in the washington times tos morning is pushing cnbc alter the debate criteria. using national polls worst things. things. he would like them to use polls from the early primary states instead of using the national polls. a bottom-upeiling plan to repeal and replace ,bamacare in new hampshire calling for tax credits to help people purchase health care as part of his bottom-up plan to repeal and replace obamacare. we will talk more about that.

more political news this morning, this is from real clear politics. chair -- the vice aboutoman talked to nbc the chairwoman, telling her not to come to the first democratic debate in las vegas. that your calls. what do you all think about the democratic debate last night? who won? loganville, georgia. independent. caller: good morning. i think the debate was good.

i thought all the participants have a vision for the majority of the american people. not like what i saw on the debates -- i think hillary won the debate. i think bernie sanders had some good points. but i don't think the american people would vote for a democratic socialist. host: how do you think hillary clinton handled the flip-flop question? caller: she did flip-flop. a lot of people flip-flop. i would not hold that against her. host: you wouldn't? caller: no, i wouldn't. host: i want to show our viewers that moment and have others react to it.

[video clip] some democrats believe you change your position based on political expediency. supported the trade guild dozens of times, now you are against it. will you say anything to get elected? >> i have been very consistent over the course of my entire life, i've always fought for the same values and principles. doe most human beings, i absorb new information, i do look at what's happening in the world. take the trade will, i did say when i was secretary of state three years ago that i hoped it would be the gold standard. it was just finally negotiated last week and looking at it, it did not meet my standards. my standards for more new good jobs for americans for raising wages for americans.

i want to make sure that i can look into the eyes of any middle-class american and say this will help raise your wages and i concluded i cannot. >> the question is about political expediency. just in july, you told the crowd you took a back seat to no one when it came to progressive values. you plead guilty to being kind of moderate and center. do you change your political identity? >> no. like most people, i have a range of views but they are rooted in my values and my experience. i do not take a backseat to anyone when it comes to progressive experience and commitment. host: hillary clinton talking about her positions changing last night during the debate, she saidoned what about the transpacific partnership trade deal that was just inked by the obama administration. the fact checker for the washington post has her full

statement. here it is -- "hope perko mike in clearwater, florida. democrat. -- the word "hope." mike in clearwater, order. democrat. caller: we need someone who is going to win and hillary can clearly win a general election. host: why do you say that? caller: the facts are there. she can win a general election whereas bernie sanders, the

american public is just not going to vote for him for president. host: are you excited about the possibility of hillary clinton becoming president? caller: positively. i voted for her in the primary last time. would beere difficulties in america with barack obama as president. i support him, but i knew there would be difficulties. host: do you have daughters? caller: no. host: what do you think when she fathers can tell their daughters that you can be president? caller: i agree completely. i do have four sisters. important that it's that the industrialized world has women leaders. it's important that we do have a

-- her changing her mind, i'm more afraid of people who don't change their mind. host: mike in clearwater, florida. i want to we've been some other news. frontpage in washington times. forgod parenthood will payment for fetal parts. inside the newspaper, the same ih gave $76s n

million in grants for research into human fetal tissue with more than half going to institutions in california, massachusetts, new york and pennsylvania. some quick headlines about news happening overseas. president obama rethinking his strategy in afghanistan. keeping troops

there because of what he has been advised from that generals on the ground. -- the generals on the ground. front-page story in the washington post. israel vowing to crush assailant in palestine. that in the washington post. you have this in the wall street journal. iran missile test was a u.n. breach. the u.s. has strong indications -- there is this in the wall street journal. russia and united states meet on

syria and strikes. -- air. a third round of talks today are aimed at avoiding conflict. those conversations continuing between the u.s. and russia. this from the new york times, a new study on malaysia airlines flight 17 that flew over ukraine and was shot down. the investigations as the missile was russian-made. the board puts blame on the ukraine for failing to close the airspace. of newse the headlines happening around the world. louisiana. republican. dave, good morning to you. ♪ goocaller: good morning.

i was very impressed with jim webb. obviously, i'm not sympathetic to the other candidates. it was mainly on the national security question. everyone else talked about climate change or global warming. the mostlaid out of theto least dangerous threats to the united states and mentioned china. ofot of people are not aware our debt situation with china. china can use this as leverage against us. host: david in michigan. democrat. what did you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. would not go on a tangent like you do reading all these right-wing papers. we are supposed to stay on target.

know that that is not right. let's stay on target. host: the host tries to we've been these articles -- caller: they are all right-wing papers. people wereamerican the winners in the presidential debate because they actually had a presidential debate and did not have the comedy show circus of the republican donald trump debates which were not even debates. debates, they had a lot of issues. -- hit a lot of issues. any democrat would be a republican. the top two republican presidential candidates happened to be a democrat.

donald trump stated he lives his life like a democrat. has ofer one, ben carson 10 months ago, he was a democrat. fact check me and give your view. host: gerald in new hampshire. independent. caller: good morning. bernie looked more presidential than anyone else. it's a good idea for all americans to look at the past on some of these candidates. look at bernie, at one time, he was in burlington, vermont. he turned that city around. he did not make a lot of friends , he had to do things sometimes that did not make everybody happy. you go there, you will see what he's all about. on the republican side, the

, i listenedm ohio to him speak couple days ago. he talks about from the bottom up. he has a track record in his state of grading jobs. -- creating jobs and not getting special interests too happy. he knows what has to be done for the american people. more if you want to hear from these presidential candidates, tune in for our coverage that continues today. jeb bush in new hampshire. he will be in concord, new hampshire. we will have coverage of that on c-span and www.c-span.org. donald trump in richmond, virginia. we will have coverage on c-span2. marco rubio in new hampshire. 12:30 p.m. eastern time today. hillary clinton at a campaign

rally in las vegas. you can continue to watch the candidates as they continue to campaign in these early primary caucus states. go to www.c-span.org if you want to hear from the other candidates we've been covering, john kasich, others. you can hear what they are saying and proposing what their visions are for this country. our campaign bus is in dallas today. in the texas state fair. visitors can to were the bus to learn about campaign 2016 programming and online resources. -- ken toward the bus -- can tour the bus. heading to austin for the book festival. you can get more information on

c-span's community efforts on www.c-span.org. you can find community at the bottom of the home page. you can follow the bus on twitter and instagram. john in greenbelt, maryland. democrat. good morning. you for c-span. i think bernie sanders won the debate. moreover, i like the conversations that he brings to the debate. the topics he brings up. money in politics is important. i would much rather have a sanders-casey collection than a -- sanders-kasich election than a bush-clinton

election. host: did you watch the whole thing? caller: i did watch the whole thing. i thought it went really well. the questions were great. hillary was outstanding. hear that bernie gained a lot of popularity. i was worried about the one question they did not ask. how they will pay for all these things they are mentioning. how they aregry going to colleges and promising -- free college and try to be santa claus for votes. they are trying to get our young people reliant on government. that makes me really sad. the other problem i had, i wish they had question the republicans the same way with substantive questions and given

them opportunity to talk about policy. host: you are calling on the republican line. you have a candidate? caller: i do not. i'm not happy about trump. there are three or four that i could vote for. with enthusiasm. i'm really, really upset about what's going on in our party. i hope it gets substantive in a minute. host: more reaction on twitter from some notables --

some reaction on twitter last night from the o republican candidates and others. melvin in indiana. i like mr. sanders. until the american people stand up and do something about this government together, it will never change.

i'm a veteran, my wife is a disabled veteran. they spoke to the fact that there is a certain organization that is not being held accountable. they gave us contaminated water for many years. i'm a victim of that. -- my wife iso having a liver transplant. --y are not even trying to the american people are lost because nobody got them to address it. the problem in this country as far as jobs is concerned, the growth of these agencies, you

will never get the economy to grow. that's what's killing this economy. if you think your job will be exempt from being a temp job, you are crazy. great, corruption and hatred have no end and your job will be if you don't speak up about these temp services. host: brad, democrat. caller: good morning. host: what did you think of the debate? caller: i thought the debate was pretty good. i like bernie sanders, but i believe hillary clinton won the debate. that -- iconcerned believe a lot of the stuff that bernie wants to get done without the able to get done -- would it not be able to get done.

the environment in this country, eh republicans being the majority in the house, i'm more afraid of what they could not get done. the new york times this morning reporting that there are now two members of the federal reserve board opposed to raising the interest rate during 2015. the comments by two officials on the federal open market committee suggesting ms. yellen facing growing internal opposition to the views she expressed last month. that in the new york times this morning on the economy. more to watch there. section of the

washington post, this tidbit about david letterman. time spending his down hosting fundraisers. he hosted one for senator al franken. munro in clinton, maryland. we are talking about last night's democratic debate. the first one for those five p what did you think about it? caller: when i look at the isates, what i'm looking for -- i liketcha moment the fact that it had more substance. who do i think would actually be able to negotiate on behalf of the party so that democrats and

republicans worked together? i want to bring it back to somebody, martin o'malley. your caller from vermont talked about fact checking about with it done in their own place. people need to look at how martin o'malley has not this is not a good pick for a number of reasons. taxes raised unnecessarily. to general fund continues get rated -- the rows are horribly bad. they got an additional $10 million from the federal government and the roads and still did not get fixed. when it comes to casinos in schools, there are so many different issues that martin o'malley loses. i hope people do their fact checking.

don't even give this guy a chance. host: would you like to see joe biden get in the race? caller: joe biden is good. i was watching a sunday talk show. the differenting stats on how if joe biden gets in the race, how much he will pull away from hillary clinton. bernie sanders will jump way up. i like joe biden. i do believe joe is one of those people who would be able to negotiate on behalf of the party if he became president. on the republican side, i don't care what people say about donald trump, he has been successful as a businessman. he would be able to negotiate with democrats. we need somebody in office who can work with both sides. host: manchester, michigan. good morning, ron.

i listened to it. loses,as who wins or this is not a sport scampered you cannot award points. -- this is not a sports game. you cannot award points. most of the candidates have a physical defect. their eyes are too close together, except for bernie. host: milton in york. democrat. that hillaryught came out as a warmer person that she is been made out to be. she hurt sanders with the gun business. i want to say something about campaign financing. said he would get some of

the on the supreme court to theturn the ruling about pacs -- host: citizens united. caller: yeah. that was something good that people have to think about. that the power and the money is going towards the 1% of the people -- in past history, when things like that happen, empires have fallen. when power and money goes into the hands of the few. the people rise up against that. , we can do it by the boat. -- by the vote. we don't have to have a revolution. with sanders is doing is 18-25-year-olds and maybe the 30-year-old's.

you see them in his crowds every time he speaks. enough of these kids to vote, he can -- he may be able to get enough senators. he may be able to get the senators to win. and that is what hillary, as far as i can see, that is what hillary is great have to do. host: i'm going to leave it there for now. when we come back, we will talk with douglas holtz-eakin about last night's debate, but also economic issues and how the republicans are faring on taxes and health care. then later, we will continue discussing last night's debate with adam green, cofounder of the progressive change campaign committee.

a beautification to my mind is far more than a matter of cosmetics. to me, it describes the whole effort to bring the natural world and the man-made world into harmony. to bring youthfulness, delight. to our whole environment. and that, of course, only begins with trees and i was an landscaping. announcer: she was about to beautifying the nation, her signature issue as first lady. she was a successful businesswoman and savvy political partner to her husband, lbj. lady bird johnson, the senate night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "first ladies," examining the public and private lives of the

women who fill the position of first lady. from martha washington to michelle obama, sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "american history tv" on c-span3. >> he said from the beginning, you know, i look in the mirror and i don't see a president. our response to that was quit looking in the mirror, but from the very beginning he just said this is nothing i have ever thought about. announcer: this sunday night on "q&a," on his book "run mitch run," about his former friend governor mitch daniels and his decision not to run for president in 2012. that he is convinced very competitive, and i think if he had made a decision to do it, that he would've had his heart and soul into it. beginning, itery

is not something that he ever really thirsted after. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on "q&a." journal": "washington continues. host: back at our table this morning, president of the american action form, mr. holds, begin-- mr. holtz, let's with last night's debate and the issue with income inequality. i want to show our viewers and get your reaction. [video clip] >> do i consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much, and so many have so little? by which wall street breeds recklessness? no, i don't. i believe in a society where all people do well. not just a handful of billionaires. >> is there anybody else on the stage who is not a capitalist?

>> let me just follow up on that, anderson, because when i think about capitalism, i think about all the small businesses that were started because we have the opportunity in our country for people to do that and make a good living for themselves and their families. i don't think we should confuse what we have to do every so often and america, which is save capitalism from itself. and i think what sanders is saying certainly make sense in the terms of the inequality we have. but we are not denmark. i love denmark. we are the united states of america and it is our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so it doesn't run amok and doesn't cause the kind of inequities we are seeing in our economic system. but we would be making a great mistake to turn our backs on what built the greatest middle-class in the history of the world. >> [cheering] >> i think everybody is in agreement that we are in -- an great entrepreneurial nation.

of course we have to support small and medium-sized businesses. but you can have all of the growth that you want and it ofsn't mean anything if all the income and wealth is going to the top 1%. so what we need to do is support more medium-sized businesses, the backbone of our economy. but we have to make sure that every family in this country gets a fair chance. host: douglas holtz-eakin, this is something that particularly hillary clinton and bernie sanders talk a lot about on the campaign trail when they are in the small town house in new hampshire and iowa. it is an issue that they think is going to get democrats a vote. guest: it certainly emanates -- animates the democrats' foundation. inequality was the seminal issue of our time about a year half ago -- year and a half ago, and

then dropped entirely. it doesn't turn out to, by in large, animate the american public. there is not something americans by and large support. things thatally two get asserted in those cans of debates. one is that somehow greedy capitalist him -- capitalism rex this economy. -- wrecks this economy. we had housing bubbles in new zealand, france, the united kingdom. they burst the same. and we had them in radically different regulatory environments. the united kingdom is unified with his federal reserve. so there is nothing that is unique to the american system that caused that crisis. the same for income inequality. it has been happening for 30 years in socialist economies, capitalist economies.

we are seeing a widening income distribution. understanding those global forces, what you can really do about them i think is key. it is not tax cuts, the minimum wage. it is people working. and we have seen a decline in working in the united states. work, theose who difference between success and that success is really skills and education. and we have to be honest about that and do a better job of lifelong learning in the united states. host: what are some of these global forces that you are talking about teco and you say republicans -- about? and you say republicans are not talking about prescriptions for remedying the wage gap. guest: so there are these two different measures. the democrats talk about wage gap, inequality. and then there is the chance to get ahead, the mobility in the united states.

one of the remarkable findings on the mobility front -- look that social mobility in the states and basically concluded that it hasn't changed in the past 50 years. now your chances of getting from the bottom 5% to the middle class or the middle class to the top really hasn't changed. you might think we had too little mobility 50 years ago, or it is fine, but it isn't the case that somehow the american dream is out of reach in a way that is new and unique right now. trail, thosempaign things get pushed aside. republicansg to say talking about what has helped the economy grow, get everything -- everyone a chance to get ahead. host: will any of those republis solve -- guest: i think they will pale in comparison to the scale of global commerce, the fact that

we have entered into the global economy. we have changed the global -- [indiscernible] -- dramatically. that is a good thing from the perspective of the globe. those are the largest anti-poverty programs we have ever seen. we should celebrate that in the big picture. but the reality is it is a different world in which we now compete. host: on wages, there are a lot of americans that would like to see the minimum wage increase. here are the democrats talking about the $15 an hour. what do think about that? and tell us why it wouldn't work. guest: i am not a fan. and i'm not a fan for a couple of reasons. number one, it will, in fact, harm job growth in america. it is going to be targeted on low skill jobs in restaurants, bars, places like that, and retail. and the best estimates in

raising the federal minimum wage to something below $15 would cause about 500,000 jobs. in an economy that employs 147 million people, that may not seem like a lot, but it is the 500,000 jobs of the people with the worst skills that most need to be employed. that is about a years worth of jobs growth in those industries. the second thing that we are doing, if you think about it, is if you get rid of a job, you are basically take money from the person who would've had that job and giving it to the person who is in the job. so we are redistributing from the poorest to the people who have a job. it doesn't make any sense to me. so, that is strike two. then strike three is this is not focusing on the problem. only seven sense of out of every dollar goes to somebody -- cents out of every dollar goes to somebody in poverty.

in contrast, something that is targeted on family income, but better on family poverty. host: we are talking with the douglas holtz-eakin about what we heard from democrats last night in their first debate. but also what a republican saying on the campaign trail about their solutions for economic problems? we will go to marry first in pennsylvania, a -- mary first in pennsylvania, a republican. caller: i want to know why is the answer always to raise taxes from the democrats? why don't they ask their far left professor pals to lower the cost of college? here is an example. we have a friend who is a professor at a pennsylvania college. he said to us just the summer, i really don't enjoy teaching, but the best part of my job is my five month paid vacation. come on!

i also want to say that our daughter worked hard to graduate college early, and we paid half and she paid half. that was the agreement. she now has a good job, a car, an apartment, and gestated paying $299 a month for her college alone. andis not a burden on us she is not a burden on the taxpayers. host: mary, can i ask you, $299 a month for her loans, how did that compared to her other bills? caller: well, like i said, she has to pay an apartment, she has a car payment, furniture payment, and insurance. and she just has a good job at a local bank because she is a financial -- that was her major. host: ok. douglas holtz-eakin. guest: mary, i am glad to hear from you because i am a native of pittsburgh. why do democrats always enter

with higher taxes? i can't answer that. it is not my favorite way to do things. texas are the price of the government to have heard and the goal should be to decide -- to have. and the goal should be to decide what education the government will provide, what infrastructure will it build, what national security will it protect americans with. that is the way we think about the problem. taxes aren't the solution. texas other pricey pay for these things. host: why do republicans always respond with let's lower taxes? guest: number one, some believe that it will lower the size of government. i don't think that is right. the whole notion of let's cut revenues, starve the beast. if you want to have a smaller government, have a smaller government. republicans in washington dc and general talk about taxes, but the reality is spending is the

crucial decision. so, talk about spending first and i think that would be a better discussion. then go to tax policy. republicans, especially in 2016, are going to talk about taxes did has -- because the tax code is a mess. there is general agreement across the aisle that we need to improve the tax code. i think the big reason is the american public has not yet had the broad public education of why the tax code is harming america. think back to 1986, we had a big tax reform. that started in that contempt is six when democrats and republicans said, look, this tax code is bad for america. and it took 10 years for both sides making the case that the better american would be better off with an improved tax code. we haven't done that yet. host: what did you make of trump's tax proposal? guest: i thought -- you know --

it would feature some things you would expect, lower rates, 4 brackets. not a lot of details. he asserts that it is revenue neutral. looked at itation and said it would move $6 trillion. -- would it lose sixth trillion dollars. host: and what about jeb bush? guest: it is a far more detailed plan, the most detailed of the campaign plans i have seen so far. it is an example of, i think, what should want in the tax code in the sense that it is very clear. it is about growth and it is about getting the tax code out of the way because it because of the tax treatment of corporations and noncorporate business. gets rid of the marriage tax, gets rid of interest to duct ability. -- interest deductibility.

of thisas got sort let's grow and let's be efficient. and the one thing he said, which i admire him for, is it is not revenue neutral. it loses money. but he said i'm going to make sure we had the spending restraint that takes -- gets apologetic balanced. -- gets the budget balance. host: and it doesn't seem that any of the candidates are too crazy about losing the mortgage interest the duction. [laughter] guest: everybody wants a better tax code. the charitable contributions help insurance. and then people think, well, maybe it isn't so bad. host: dorothy in baltimore, a democrat. , you'reyes, mr. holtz talking about the minimum wage and you said you don't think it should be raised.

time, we're in making about $1.35 an hour. we did have a lower minimum wage at some point. if we never raised it and businesses never really raised led.e couldn't have i still remember -- and dimon maryland -- i remember when my friends could buy a car. they bought homes. they had disposable cash. they had savings. those same people right now are making more money. i have worked at my job for 25 years and i am making the same salary from someone worked there 25 years ago -- 15 years ago. but our money, we don't have any disposable money. and the large corporations --

[indiscernible] -- if you can pay a ceo $4000 or $7,000 an hour, you can find a $15, but not to go to you should be able to have a minimum wage that is raised maybe one dollar or something every year and cap at some point for a sin amount of years. number of years. if you ever take a paycheck of somebody making $40,000 to $60,000 in taxes and everything, out of there and expenses, take 11 time do an experiment on anybody. see how far it goes. host: ok, dorothy. guest: a couple things. number one, she is right. there are some places where the minimum wage could be raised. in some industries, and some localities. that wouldn't have much impact.

and you have seen some municipalities they we are going to wait minimum raise -- we are going to raise minimum wage. that is fine. i worry about the federal mandate that is one-size-fits-all and doesn't cater to the local economy. we should all want higher wages. i think there is no question that people haven't had real wages gone up, but they have gone up. there is a lot of clamor that haven't reason that much, but if you look at the data, there is a better standard of living now than there was 30 years ago. host: should ceos be making $3000 an hour? i don't know if that is the correct amount. guest: i think the solution to that is better competition. you should be able to get on corporate boards and sent salaries in ways that make -- set salaries in ways that make sense.

shareholders who are in the and working out the money for that salary, they should have a better say. host: an independent, you are next, james. caller: hello. host: go ahead, you are on the air. caller: i was watching the debates last night. summers and ms. clinton -- mr. sanders and ms. clinton really portrayed the division in this country between the democrats. and also, i think donald trump and mr. carson also portrayed the division when they come down to the republican party. and this is the issue right here. have a lot,do not you don't his emphasis on the

poor or the middle class when it comes to a lot of these politicians. just like this man here on here now is saying that the debacle with the banks and all that, that came from overseas. you know, so there is a lot of propaganda going on. host: not emphasis on the poor. guest: when i look at these debates, you can focus on the division. and there is lots of division within the republican party. division within the democrats now. but there is also a remarkable agreement and what you would like to do. you hear republicans talk about the importance of small businesses. both sides worry a lot about poverty an adequate standard of living. both sides have talked about income inequality and the chance to get ahead in america. where they differ is in the solutions. so there is not a dictionary on the problems -- not a

disagreement on the problems we face, it is how we are going to solve these problems. i think the biggest divide among candidates is are you the kind of person who wants all or nothing, my way or the highway? or are you going this it down and get half of what you want, deal with the other side, make some progress and then turn around again and try the next year? host: what do think the solution would be for a budget deal? that is one debate they need to face up by capitol hill when they come back. do think republican should agree to strike a two-year budget deal? guest: i thought the ryan-murray deal was the model for what we need to do with the budget, both politically, right -- these were senior leaders in the party sitting down and negotiating something in the party -- but also from the budget point of view. the federal budget has many ills, but one of the things going on right now is the big spending programs -- the ones

that are on autopilot, medicare, social security's, armed programs, and all those things -- they are crowding out the annual spending on national security, infrastructure, education. host: the kind of things that lawmakers have -- get to have a say on. guest: and a democracy, and onto be able to change -- in a democracy, it ought to be able to change. i like ryan-murray because he gave more flexibility in the annual spending, and made that flexibility possible after reducing other spending. host: in georgia, a democrat. you are next. caller: yes, our like to ask mr. eakin how come the republicans always talk about corporate tax rate when we know the corporates don't pay whatever it is?

they don't put them back into the plant and invest in job creation. guest: republicans are worried about the corporate tax because we have, in fact, managed to construct the worst of all worlds. ae have the corporate tax -- corporate tax with the highest rate in all the developed world. it is damaging growth and international competitiveness. it and -- and it raises almost no revenue. i think lowering the rate makes a lot of sense. the average among our competitor countries as someone between 20% and 25%. we are at 35%, way out of line. so those changes are intended actually to make sure we stop losing the headquarters. and when we lose the headquarters, we really harm the average american. host: to those countries that have lower corporate tax rates also have loopholes? guest: the definition of tax

reform is lower rate, broaden the base. and in the process, collect the revenue more intelligently. host: james is watching us in georgia, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air, sir. caller: good morning, yes. i would like to make a comment about the democratic debate last night. host: sure. caller: yes, i would like to make a comment about the democratic debate last night. and our like to make a comment about what bernie sanders said last night. commentanders made a about the -- about the income inequality. and he likes to make a about what about -- billionaireo a -- a

. and billionaires are getting so much of the money in this economy today. and i agree with him about that. are about 400 going as in america today. host: this idea that most of the wealth is going to the 1%. guest: the big numbers have been comparisons of wealth of the 1% to, say, the top 5%. the 1% have gotten richer at the expense of the other very rich, believe it or not. and the second is comparisons to the middle class. most of the action, sadly, is that the middle class went down. most middle-class people, their wealth is their house. with the housing crisis and the crash, and in many cases hardly recovered at this point, that is where the wealth went. their wealth was wiped out for

all practical purposes. the rest really got hammered really badly. host: and what about their savings accounts? their 401(k)s? guest: we are in this environment where saving with very low interest rates -- there is no sense that there is recovery. i think it is important to recognize the frustration israel. we have not seen real wages rise in this economy. people have given up to a great extent in some cases. we aren't seeing the traditional vehicles for rebuilding wealth workout very well. i don't blame anyone for being terribly frustrated. host: so if there is no solution that is politically realistic from washington, what does the average american do to try to catch up on their wealth? guest: there is no magic, right. what do you do? you work and you say. and you have to figure out what

is your tolerance for risk when you save your -- you say. treasuries, it in it is going to take a heck of a lot time -- a lot of time. host: i have to get your reaction to the report this morning that two members of the federal reserve or nothing publicly they don't think interest rates should be raised in 2015. this is, of course, in contrast to what the chairwoman has said. confusedam thoroughly by what the federal reserve is up to. i think they are well past the point of when they could have easily raised rates. this is basically a quarter of 1%. the notion that this will somehow derail this recovery i have little sympathy for. they are spewing also at of uncertainty into the market -- spewing all sorts of uncertainty into the market.

sort of getting back to regular monetary policy is long overdue. host: marietta, georgia. an independent, go ahead. caller: good morning. and i have actually three comments. mr. douglas, i disagree with you when you said that the united states didn't have anything to do with what happened to the world economy. being that we are the global economy, when wall street -- when they packaged those mortgages into investment portfolios, and they sold those portfolios worldwide, some countries had those bad portfolio investments in their country. and when that happened, when that bubble blasted, it became -- [indiscernible] -- then it was the domino effect. secondly, when you talk about

incomes. i know my father never graduated. made $12 an hour. i am a four-year college graduate, and i can't even make $12 an hour now. so to say that things haven't change, the have changed. and for most people in your position that don't leave the real left, you don't have no idea. you sit there and look at different numbers. numbers don't tell the real story. we know what is real and what is not real. host: i am going to have douglas holtz-eakin respond. guest: she is right, and i must have misspoke and. it is not that the u.s. didn't have a financial crisis, and it is not the case that a financial crisis did an impact us. that is all true. my point was that the real root cause, the things like housing bubbles, they existed everywhere. in the end, if you think about

it, the great failure that was revealed in the crisis was the oldest kind of financial transaction. it was lending from a bank to a person to buy a house. and of those loans had been sound and the mortgage payment had been made, none of those securities would have ever failed. so the real fair on the ground was -- failure on the ground was lending to people to buy a house. and that happened all across the globe. it is not our rules, our tax system. whatever went on, it was a broader issue. host: you mean the trading of all those -- guest: the trading magnified the problem. the problem was people buying houses they couldn't afford and not being able to maintain it in the end. and on the income issue, there is this tremendous fondness people have for the 1950's, the 1960's. and that is great, but it is important to remember that we

were post-world war ii when most of the world economy literally lay in ashes, and the u.s. economy essentially had a monopoly in rebuilding big industries like steel and the commodities that drove it. that is not the world we live in now. the globe has recovered. the developing countries are not competitor companies -- countries. host: in rochester, new york, a democrat. good morning to you. caller: yes, good morning. thanks to c-span for taking my call. and i would just like to comment on the $15 an hour minimum wages. thei would like to say if minimum wages are $15 an hour, how much of a college graduate make an hour? and i would just like to say began back at,em

i think, the beginning of the nafta trade deal. up to that point, americans had demanded so much from their employees that we could no longer afford ourselves. we could no longer make a product at a price and sell it in the world market at a competitive rise. and if a lot of our jobs have not went overseas at that time, this country and most of our jobs would have what bankrupt at that time. manufacturers, if they have to increase their wages, they do not take a loss on their profit levels. costsontinuously pass the onto consumers. and if we can't sell a price in the world market at a competitive price, they will not be any trade among the americans. why wele need to realize are in the shape that we are in. and raising the minimum wages to

$15 an hour is only going to a use the price of production. and we will not be able to export products to a foreign country. host: mr. holtz-eakin. guest: i don't know how much a college graduate should make, but $15 an hour is $30 and -- $30,000 a year. is that really what we want to ask employers to pay for teenagers who are trying to get in their first job and people who really have no experience and the labor market? that is where you get in the the problem of the ron numbers being overwhelming -- into the problem of the raw numbers being overwhelming to the company. the way out of that box, the way that you can actually get higher wages and not have to push prices up is called productivity. and the u.s. traditionally has been the country that has had the most productive workers and

the best productivity growth. that is something that has disappeared in the past two years especially. a bit of a mystery and a big concern because without that, you can truly afford to pay those higher wages and remain competitive. host: you also brought up nafta. this deal just agreed to with the united states and 11 pacific nations has to get before congress, though. what to make of it? how will it impact our economy? guest: the u.s. does two things really well: it in fenced off. -- it in fans stuff. invents stuff. whether it is gender tractors or smart refrigerators or software. and we are remarkably productive at growing things. our agriculture sector is literally without compare on the globe. we are the most efficient farmers on the planet. so any trade deal that is going to benefit us in raw economic

terms should allow us to take advantage of those things that we do well. export open to agricultural and in native -- and innovative markets echo or will it get stolen -- and innovative markets? or will it get stolen? i think that is how to a valuator. in contrast to nafta or any other big trade deal as the terms under which it was negotiated require that it be posted on a website for 60 days. and everyone can literally go through every line of it for two months. so there is going to be no quick you vote on this -- quickie vote on this. and we are really understanding tpp for the first time. host: how many chapters other to this agreement? guest: i don't know the answer, but it is in that ballpark to for example -- ballpark. for example, there is a chapter

on digital goods. we have never had digital goods. it is in there. host: when it is posted, which will be another 15 or so days because they have 30 days to put it up for the public to review and then 60 days after that. margaret, north carolina, a democrat. hi, there. margaret, are you with us? caller: yes. host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i would like to ask the guest where in the united states of america can a person survive on $7.25 an hour? guest: so, the minimum wage was never intended to be a wage that was an adequate standard of living. if that is what you want to do -- and i have some sympathy for that -- there are better programs to pursue. so, moment of self-promotion -- i worked out essentially

subsidies that honors the basic commitments that if you work full-time, you will not live in poverty. we can do that. and that is a program that would be cheaper than the earned income tax credit. i would have no problem with that. host: what is your plan? guest: basically, it is a single person and if you work about 2000 hours a year, if you got how much you have to make per hour to be out of poverty. if you are not making that, the government can subsidize the difference. one thing that that does is it allows the individual to pay, as they work if they work hard enough, they will be out of poverty. be trying toe to have good incentives to work and we want to make sure they get rewarded for that work. host: instead of -- guest: putting people out of work and picking between people. host: mike, independent. caller: thank you.

to set of -- two sets of questions. -- [indiscernible] host: mike, i apologize to you. i couldn't understand a word of that. perhaps you can call back in. apologies. michelle in washington, a democrat. caller: good morning. i am so glad i got through. host: welcome. caller: thank you. i can't believe this gentleman is actually promoting cutting corporate taxes. there not waxing over 1950's. we are waxing over the 1980's. i could put myself through college on a four dollar and our job. -- an hour job. one hour i worked, i could buy a pizza. i cannot buy a pizza on one

hour's worth of work now. my value has increased. and all you see is corporate ceos' wages go up. their ability to borrow money goes down. and our wages go down. powerars ago, citizen ruled this country. corporations were privileged to get a charter to operate. they had responsibilities to the public. and paying a fair wage was not the responsibility. that was the basis. that was the foundation of their operation. they had to do more than that. how do you promote lower tax rates for corporations -- how da re you promote lower tax rate for corporations. host: ok, michelle. guest: many have -- as we have

talked about -- deductions, credits, a million things in the tax code that will lower their average tax rate below the 35%, which is the top tax rate. i'm not advocating that -- and i do think you see anyone advocating that -- corporations should pay less taxes. with the advocate for is a better way of collecting those taxes that doesn't interfere with their abilities to compete internationally. the way our workers succeed now is through the large global corporations that can sell to the 95% of the consumers outside of the united states. i think to put the tax code in the way of success for their corporations and their workers is a mistake. host: a headline this morning, jeb bush unveils bottom-up plan to repeal, replace obamacare. at an event yesterday, here's what he had to say about his

proposal for health care. [video clip] >> i one except the strawman argument from the other side that they have been making that the opposite of obamacare is no care. there is a better way. it doesn't mean going back to the way things used to be. we need a system that doesn't just address the systems in health care, but one that meets the needs for our economy. my aspiration is that this country should grow at 4% per year as far as the eye can see. i can promise you that the demands on government would subside. there would be a lot more people in the private insurance market working for companies that would be able to increase their pay instead of having to slough off their health care costs. the greatest suppression of wages today is a obamacare and a health care system that existed prior to obamacare. it is not working. more and more of the costs are put on the backs of employees, and take-home pay has declined. is 2000le income today

plus dollars last bennett was the day the recovery started. the health care costs are part of this. and moving to a different system would make it work. host: your reaction to what he is proposing. guest: it is remarkable. in 2007, there was broad agreement -- republicans all had health care reform plans, democrats had health care reform planned. one problem was adequate coverage for insurance options they could afford, and the second was the health care costs themselves. it is the same debates now. this is exactly the same concern people have. whether it is repeal and replace or modify or whatever the language is, the health care ines --sector broadly health care reform sector is not done for it is side. there hasn't been real change in the projection of health care

costs. it slowed for a couple years, now it is back to when health care costs grow that fast, you do get these pressures on wages. buy health care policies that have acre co-pays, getting pushed onto workers in the and. co-pays, getting pushed onto the workers in the end. i think it is a step in the right direction. this approach with a heavy dose of mandates must have these insurance components. that does make insurance policies more expensive. medicaid is the foundation of a lot of its expansion. medicaid is not a uniformly good program. sort of taking a more streamlined version of how you do the expansions and focus on better health care delivers is the key. host: what mr. bush's proposal

get enough people into the system so that costs come down? guest: there are two different reasons that costs are up. if you have the young and the healthy out of the pool, so they are not there to help cover the costs of the older and sicker, that was the great promise of the affordable care act and the mandate. they made it illegal to not have insurance, and then they pay people to buy insurance. it has been remarkably unsuccessful. this is no alternative approach to try to do that -- an alternative approach to try to do that. host: mary, a democrat. caller: hi. i just have i think three comments. first of all, i agree with virginia because he is obviously not getting the message. the other thing is that i agree with the guy that said workers who are not making enough to themselves get subsidies

because they can give them anyway if they apply for food stamps or whatever. the other thing is $15 an hour jobs are mostly the working poor. they are not kids. so he is wrong about that. the other thing i wanted to say about bernie sanders and the democratic socialists is the way i see it, all government services are socialism because those services are not privately owned. host: there -- mary, i will have douglas holtz-eakin respond. guest: only about 2% of american workers are in poverty and working at the minimum wage. so, it is a poster child for trying to improve things, but it is not the facts on the ground. you have to really look at what is working. host: we did cover a lot of ground with you this morning. appreciate your time. up next, we are going to return to last night's democratic debate. we will talk with an activist

from the party, adam green. and then later, our spotlight continues. we will talk with the author who wrote a cover story about mass incarceration in america. we will be right back. announcer: this monday on "landmark cases," by 1830, the mississippi river has become a breeding ground for yellow fever, partly due to slaughterhouses in the area dumping their byproducts into the river. to just this problem, louisiana allowed only one government run slaughterhouse to operate in the district. follow the slaughterhouse cases of 1873. we are joined by paul, former

solicitor general, and michael ross, also of the book "justice of shattered dreams," to help tell the history of this time period in the south and the state of things in new orleans, as well as the supreme court justices involved in this close decision. we should to join the conversation as we take your calls, treats, and facebook -- tweets, and facebook comments live on monday. copy of the "landmark cases" companion book. it is available at c-span.org/landmarkcases. c-span has her coverage of the road to the white house 2016, where you will find the candidates, the

speeches, the debate, and most announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: it is a very early morning in las vegas. adam green, after watching last night's debate and taking part in it is joining us from that city. the cofounder of progressive change campaign committee. let's get your thoughts. expressed the progressive point of view last night? thing that was very clear watching the debate at the hotel last night was that the center of gravity in a

democratic -- in the democratic party has really shifted towards warren wing, as we call it. this was the first presidential debate in history where issues like debt-free college, extending social security benefits, jailing wall street tooers that broke the law, big -- actually got a time in a presidential debate. so we are really thrilled about that. there were definitely some differences between the candidates. but they all had strong performances last night. host: i want you to respond to hillary clinton when she was she -- which he was -- when was asked if she is a progressive. [video clip] >> i am a progressive, but i'm a progressive that likes to get things done. i know how to stand my ground, and i have proved that in every position i had.

even in dealing with republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly. but we found ways to work together on everything from reforming foster care and adoption to children's health insurance program. so i have a long history of getting things done, rooted in the same values i have always had. host: adam green? guest: i am really glad you played that cold -- clip because, one, she was asked if she was a progressive or a moderate. bill clinton would have called himself a dlc, basically corporate democrat. the party has been upholding over time, and the general election electorate has been evolving over time.

rallies the people to pressure congress to get it ideas, like extending social security benefits, debt-free college and tuition for college for all students accomplished, and other things like that. hillary clinton has also some -- in the same direction for some of these issues. but she is basically saying i know how to build consent and congress. green, you say she is going that same direction. do you trust that she would stick to progressive principles that your group has outlined? guest: another great question. one that we hear a lot.

so, the first point is that it really does matter -- words do matter before actions. would have been living -- would be living -- we would be living an entirely different world if one said don't worry about social security and the other saying the opposite of that. instead, we have candidates, again, marching towards the north star that is the elizabeth warren worldview. and that matters because it means in 2016, we have the prospect of senate candidates, house candidates, as well as presidential candidates all basically going off of the same book. all giving a united, big picture vision. and that is what crushed democrats in 2014, not having that big picture. we are really thrilled everybody is marching in that direction. that said, we are going to have

our work to do. her wording so far of the transpacific partnership has been positive, but tentative did if she learns one new fact, she could likely change her mind. we will see if she fights for some of the things if elected. and partly it is a job for the grassroots to make them do it. but if we have democratic party unity around big, bold economic paying tens or hundreds of millions dollars to get this message across, part of their self identity becomes at one with his -- these issues. it is not just asking candidates to be on the record, we are working with candidates to go deep on these things and make big ideas center base of their campaign. host: you brought up elizabeth warren a couple times now. wing pushing democrats to

talk about these issues. i still hoping that elizabeth warren is a candidate? guest: there are a lot of people other who would absolutely love it. the progressive change campaign committee led -- raised her about what hundred thousand dollars before she even decided to run and small dollar donations. and ultimately raised her about $1.17 million in small dollar donations. we were not part of the elizabeth warren for president effort, but we have been urging all candidates and working hard to incentivize all candidates to take what we call elizabeth warren wing positions. i don't think she is going to run, but it is very clear that the debate stage last night was influenced by elizabeth warren's presence. host: there is also a draft biden effort that is going on.

commercials for encouraging the vice president to run running yesterday on cnn leading up to last nights's debate. i want to show our viewers and get your reaction. [video clip] >> for the rest of our lives, my sisters and brothers, for the rest of our lives, my dad never failed to remind us that a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. it is about -- it is about your dignity. >> [applause] >> it is about respect. it is about your place in the community. it is about being able to look your child in the eye and say, honey, it is going to be ok. and mean it. and you know it is true. >> [applause] >> you never quit on america, and you deserve a president who will never quit on you. >> [applause] run? adam green, should he guest: joe biden there mentioned

dignity, respect, place in the community, and there is no doubt that joe biden is very respected. there is a lot of love out there for him. that said, especially after last night's debate, right now there is not a clear rationale for a biden candidacy. we will see if that changes. there will to run, be a lot of questions asked of him. early on in this campaign, we were talking about how there were many unchecked boxes with clinton -- with hillary clinton. she had not come out on issues related to campaign finance reform and debt-free college. now she has on almost all of them, social security being a very big exception. he said several weeks ago, expressing his views on bernie sanders, that he likes bernie sanders but said, quote, i'm not a populist. time amongng in a

general election voters, the idea of extending social security is popular by 70% to 15%. freefree college, -- debt college -- you should be able to college -- graduate from college with zero debt. that is 71% to 19% popular. so he better be a populist if he runs. host: "politico" reporting that the vice president invited back in august elizabeth warren to an unannounced lunch at the naval observatory where he lives. according to sources connecting raisedizabeth warren, he -- , ifyou saying those two they were on the ticket, that their visions wouldn't match up?

guest: i am not saying they wouldn't match up. they certainly don't have the same vision or the same theory of governing. we work very closely with elizabeth warren. she is one of the most strategic people i have ever met. she is amazing at not just giving voice to a populist message, inspiring democrats, republicans, independents alike, but they bring out a strategy with those on the inside of government work with those on the outside of government. joe biden is from a different generation, in terms of when he rose to political power. he very much is kind of a shoot from the hip kind of guy. that is what makes him a lovable. but they have two completely different styles. also, one of my favorite chris rock lines way back in the day when there was the prospect of bob dole picking colin powell to be his running mate, he said, why would he pick someone who

could beat? i don't imagine her being a vice presidential nominee. it would be a demotion or her -- for her. host: in atlanta, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i just need a little bit of time. my feeling is there was only one honest man on the stage last night and that was bernie sanders. ladyin the 1960's, a published a book, "forgotten man. more recently" i remember an interview brian did.d -- lamb in both, the question they asked

hillary, are you a progressive -- i remember her being asked that question during her first run against president obama. she answered, no, i'm a progressive in the definition of progressive in the early 20th century. the progressives in the earl y 20th century were registered with the communist party. bernie sanders admits he is a socialist. the rest of them on the stage call themselves something else, but they are socialists the same as bernie is. that's why i say he is the only man on the stage. host: ok, adam green? first of all, hello. i feel like you or someone like you calls when i'm on c-span.

it is part of what makes him resonate so much with voters. i was in germany recently when -- in europe recently when jeremy corbyn started to rise. they have similar populist themes. americas a trust gap in and throughout the world, especially given the wall street collapse, homes and retirements being flushed down the drain. they want the ones who have known from the start that big corporations need to be held accountable. what we have seen in polling is that people don't really care about labels very much. the same "new york times" poll 70% of the population wanted a publicly run --urance company, and in 20% and in the same hole, 20% -- themselves20% called

liberal. people think about the debt their kids are at me leaving for college -- are accumulating for college. they think about whether their parents can both be an by and buy -- both eat medicine if they are on social security. hillary clinton has been marching in the same direction on many of these things. there are some differentia -- differentiations we should talk about. caller: i have a comment and the question -- and a question. i support bernie sanders, but, realistically, he is not going to get the democratic nomination for presidency. how many other

congressmen and senators have a progressive agenda? i don't hear much about these samee representing the reforms burning -- bernie is. guest: if you agree with ernie -- bernie, why would you support hillary? it is possible there is a real race to the top on the democratic side. anything is possible at this time. progressive in congress, we work with a lot of them. elizabeth warren is one of the best -- the most well-known. congressman keith ellison and congressman raul grijalva. -- mccann. mccain there are many others who are part of what is now the biggest office in the house -- biggest

caucus in the house. there were a lot of progressives and elizabeth warren had a galvanizing effect, allowing them to be more full throated in their populism. al franken and jeff merkley had tight races in 2008. populism showed good margins. check them out. you can go to boldprogressives.org, where we identify the next up-and-coming members of congress. shelbyville, indiana, good morning. caller: how is all of this supposed to get paid for? if anybody thinks or believes that this is not communist approach, they haven't read history. "ere is a good box -- book,

rome."ton in the lack op of people with kids need to be paying attention to what's going on in this country and for themselves. nobody wants this bondage to the government to shift power to a bunch of people at the top to run things, not just for this country, but it is a global agenda. from we've heard this several viewers this morning reacting to last night's debate. this is coming from republican and independents. what they heard is that democrats want to offer a bunch of things for free. how are we going to pay for it? guest: great question. one thing i find sad is when the little guys fight among themselves for crumbs while the big guy gets away with the entire pie.

that's what we see on so many issues. you are asking about how are we going to pay for things like free college, when the g.i. bill -- it is an expenditure, there was a seven to one return. you have to be willing to make those investments in our economy, the same with so many of these things. meanwhile, corporations like ge and others pay 0% taxes. how about instead of you getting mad that we will make life more affordable for you, we ask the big guys to pay their fair share? the government is barred by law from negotiating, using their book is using power -- their book purchasing power -- their tok purchasing power, negotiate with health care companies?

there are variations. depending on how it was implemented, it would be hundreds of liens of dollars and it would put a damper on risky -- hundreds offf billions of dollars and it would put aa damper -- it would damper on risky speculative stuff. as mike huckabee winged out in the republican debate, those who pay themselves in stock options don't pay taxes -- as mike in thee pointed out republican debate, those who pay themselves in stock options don't pay the same taxes. there are easy ways to do this if we are willing to take from the big guy and support the little guy and stop attacking ourselves. host: let me ask you what the moderator asked bernie sanders last night.

why would you have billionaire donald trump's children get a free education in college? guest: first of all, let's be clear. donald trump is not sending his kid to community college or even public college. the idea of debt-free college is, if you go to any public college or university, you should be able to graduate debt-free. if we got a 71 investment on investment return on bill, we needg.i. to make these kinds of investments. anyone who is low income or middle income should get more of and not have to work 20, 30, 40 hours a week to put themselves through college or take out tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. i find it depressing when good people graduate with lots of

help peopleant to in their community, have to take a job working for the oil company or the tobacco company. keeping good people back, preventing the next possible founder of google to start a small business because they are saddled with loans. --need to agree that you are if you are a student in america, you should be able to graduate debt-free. if someone wants to aim those dollars towards the middle class and lower class, that is a legitimate argument. host: welcome to the conversation. caller: mexico being our closest neighbor, if we would go in and take the men from 18 to 30 military,y, go in the go to a military base, train

them for a few, which wouldn't cost what we have been spending to train other people, they have the stamina and the intelligence to do our work, one million of them. and they aren't afraid to fight. if we would train them, they would be a good ally. host: why are you bringing this up? what is your point? caller: the point is that all the mexicans want to come to the united states. if they would come and join the army, then we would have an army to fight isis, because they have the stamina and the will to learn. host: let me move on to jane, an independent in san diego. you are on the air. caller: thank you for giving me

the opportunity to ask a question live. i appreciate it. i was not able to watch the debate last night because i do not get cnn. i searched all over the internet see how i could get to watch it. i went to the website, tried to sign on, could not sign on. they said because i do not subscribe to cnn on tv, i can't get it online. i was totally blocked out from watching the debate. this is wrong. any channel that has it has to be open entirely to everyone to have the opportunity to watch debates -- presidential debates. i would like to know how can we change this system, because it is serving only a specific audience? -- audience. host: john in temple hills, maryland, a republican.

your question for adam green, cofounder of the progressive change campaign committee. caller: i'm talking about fixes, really. no candidate has come up with any fixes. the bad thing about politicians, they are not technicians. we have problems with co2, what is co2? hey, we are going to force the oil companies to create a co2 reduction filter to lower emissions. these are man-made issues. they need man-made answers. we have enough people that can come up with some good ideas to lower co2. we have co2 filtration systems. we have water filtration systems that can clean the water in our waterways. we don't have politicians talk about fixes. party, it is like cafeteria food. you rename yourself to mystery

meat monday. host: i think we have your point. adam green? guest: i will stick to your core point that we need politicians to talk about solutions to problems. i'm not sure if we watched the same debate. on the republican side, there was a lot of personality-based stuff, petty stuff. to your point about clean energy, this was the first presidential debate in history where big ideas, from debt-free college to extending social security to 100% clean energy were mentioned on the presidential debates page. it is aspirational and inspirational -- presidential debate stage. it is aspirational and inspirational. precisely what line you put in a bill, that comes in governing. we need a president who will have big ideas that are put on the table that will genuinely

impact millions of people's lives and inns buyer -- and inspire people to vote. this election will be about something, if last night's debate stage was indicative. host: david in albany, new york, go ahead. few, i i am one of those guess, who has had the opportunity to live overseas for almost 30 years, and it just the scapegoat for progress in america is read communism --ss -- redefining communism and socialism. debating socialism has nothing to do with you are in poverty and the ceo is making $200

million per year. i would like to see america be less confined to definitions. toeurope, we get exposed communism and socialism, but that has nothing to do with putting food on the table, especially in this country. i thank you. guest: that's absolutely right. we can't fight over the crumbs. a multibillion dollar company and the little guy is not being paid enough to live, that is a problem. that's why it's good that we had this populist north star that all candidates are walking towards. i wanted to point out some of the differentiations among the candidates. ,n the issue of social security there is a problem right now in america, with corporations cutting pensions, the rising , socialr seniors

security does not keep up with the basic needs that our grandparents and our veterans have. berniertin o'malley and sanders have both proposed is increasing social security benefits for all seniors and paying for it by asking the rich to pay their fair share. hillary clinton -- this is the box she has not checked yet. she talks about enhancing benefits, but that could mean anything. paul ryan could talk about saving social security when he really means cutting it. last night, she said it would include ways and benefits -- include raising benefits for lower income. it is important to hear she will never cut those benefits. we need to hear her position on that. as was referenced before, bernie sanders was saying, among college costs, there are tuition costs and non-tuition costs.

he thinks all tuition should be free and there should be things .o help with other cost hillary clinton has a different proposal. $350 billion that would structure things a little differently. it would not have tuition be free, but it would functionally result in millions of americans having access to debt-free college. these are differentiations americans need to be aware of and think about when assessing these candidates. , after atreet reform lot of hard work and change in the population, all the candidates are talking about prosecuting and jailing wall street bankers if they defraud people like you, if they take away people's life savings illegally. that's a seachange from where we were a while ago. there are big differentiations about whether candidates are willing to break up banks that are too big to fail.

glass-steagall would stop it banks from gambling away people's life savings. we deserve to see that. do we break up the too big to fail banks? that's something we will hopefully have more airtime to dig into these issues. we are looking forward to the cbs debate on the 14th of november. host: in des moines, sponsored by kcci and "the des moines register." would you like to see less candidates on the stage so there is more time to go deeper into the issues you outlined? guest: that interesting. lawrence lessig is someone we have worked with before and has achieved the remarkable task of telling people he would run for he raised $1y if

million in small dollar and hens within weeks, did it. he deserves to have some airtime . jim webb and lincoln chafee largely disqualified themselves last night. it was pretty embarrassing watching them. i felt bad watching them. they were off the stage, i would not fret too much. martin o'malley should still be there, hillary clinton should still be there. what i would change most is the moderation. anderson cooper did an ok job, but he did not ask a lot of questions americans want. he tried to get the candidates to fight with each other. he tried to nitpick on a lot of .illy stuff in the first hour luckily, economic issues finally came up in the second hour, but we need a system of open debate where every day people can

submit and vote on questions and the moderators have to choose from the questions people submit. there is a vibrant silicon valley coalition that is urging the network to have this system of debates. we are hopeful that in this election cycle, we will have an open debate. that's how the will of the people will truly be represented. host: we at the "washington journal" have an invitation out to mr. lessig. scheduling conflicts have presented -- prevented it thus far. with is some issue democrats on the stage giving hillary clinton a pass. "if democrats aren't willing to raise the main reason that miss clinton is losing against areblicans, then they centrally putting their nomination into a clinton blind trust."

do you have concerns in a general election matchup, if she were to become the nominee, about the polls showing that americans have a trust issue with her? guest: sure. i think that's a legitimate concern. i think there is a right way and wrong way to voice that concern. the wrong way would be to harp on issues like e-mail servers and try to use that as a proxy for what's going on. the right way to address those concerns is to say, secretary clinton, when you talk about enhancing social security ?enefits, what do you mean what promises are you making to seniors? that is something that impacts millions of people and you need to be more explicit. you say you don't upgrade with the tpp -- don't agree with the tpp based on the information you have now. support a deal that was written by corporations in

secret? if she is willing to say no, i will expand social security benefits, never cut them. we will rip up the tpp and start from scratch. she would start to solve the trust issue. i would encourage candidates to do that, but not to cart on petty stuff -- not to carp on petty stuff. host: good morning. caller: i appreciate your views. i'm a bernie sanders supporter. just with the way our economy is set up today, i am for our kids having free college and having a medicaid, expanding social security, but with raising taxes on corporations and stuff, with trade partnerships with china, this deal, with raising rates on

corporations. how are we going to keep them from just going overseas? we will be competing with the vietnamese, people who make $.50 per hour wages, other countries like that that have such a lower wage than we do in this country. ?ost: mr. greene echo -- mr. green? upst: there are ways to lift labor standards, lift up working conditions. when big corporations are the the in the room writing laws, when members of congress aren't allowed to have visibility, when advocates for labor and communities aren't allowed at the table, it is rigged from the start. part of what bernie sanders has

brought into the race is he is starting from the bottom of and willing to give voice to the little guy. it has had a game changing impact on the national debate stage. host: we will go to ronald next in greensboro, north carolina, independent. caller: good morning. i'm a fan of bernie sanders. i like what he has to offer, especially from the debate last night. i also like donald trump just because of his business sense. i think america would be great with someone who has a better perspective of what the economy looks like and how it should run . we have so many politicians who come from political science backgrounds and law that we are not getting an economist's perspective. so many of the plans people are proposing with economics and how we are going to handle social security, i think if they had an economic background, we could have a better america. guest: i respect the question.

one misnomer out there is that donald trump is a good businessman. somebody ran the numbers and found out, if he had taken the inheritance he got from his father -- he was born rich -- and just invested in a fun, went away and came back, he would have more money than what he has today. he has gone through a lot of bad business deals. you has gone bankrupt many times. he is not someone you want to trust your economy with. part of what bernie sanders has said are specific names of economic advisers they would appoint to their cabinet. bernie sanders named people like nobel winning economist paul krugman, people like robert reisch, who have been proven right over and over again.

republican sheila bair, who has been known with elizabeth warren as one of the sheriffs of wall street. they have a lot of understanding of the markets. these are the people who have been right all along your predicting what happened, coming up with the right solutions, and unfortunately being ignored. donald trump is not the solution. host: thank you again for getting up early this morning and talking to our viewers about last night's debate. guest: for those who like the message, our website is boldprogressives.org. host: thank you very much. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we will take a "spotlight on magazines." --fan management boasts stefanos be best -- stephanos bibas of "national review."

to my mind,ication, is far more than a matter of cosmetics. to me, it describes the whole effort to bring the natural world and the man-made world into harmony, to bring order, usefulness, the light -- delight to our whole environment. and that, of course, only begins with trees and flowers and landscaping." >> her signature issue as first lady. she was a natural campaigner, successful businesswoman, and the political partner to lbj. lady bird johnson, this sunday originalc-span's series "first ladies, influence and image." examining their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama.

sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american tv history -- american history tv on c-span3. >> c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016, the candidates, the speeches, the debates, and your questions. we are taking our road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our student can contest -- studentcam contest, giving students to this -- students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most. follow it on tv, on the radio, and online at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. we continue today with our ongoing series, "spotlight on magazines," taking a look at reason magazine articles. we are talking about a recent

cover story for "national review." " the truth about mass incarceration -- "the truth about mass incarceration." joining us is the author, stephanos bibas. professor, let me begin with the headline, "the truth about mass incarceration." what do you mean? guest: president obama in recent months has been talking about why so many americans are in is in. we had the highest incarceration rate in the world, above russia, cuba, belarus, kazakhstan. our prison population has ballooned sevenfold over the last 30 years to 40 years. the president has been saying that a primary driver of this phenomenon is mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. he was the first president to visit a prison, and he blames it

on nonviolent drug offenders being locked away for decades. he has picked up on a diet -- on crow," of "the new jim structural racism at work, locking people away for drug crimes that don't hurt anybody else. it does not fit the facts. most of the people in prison are there for violent crime. a and property crimes together -- drug crimes are at most 15 of the people -- at most 1/5 of the people locked up. there are a few people being locked away a long time for being drug dealers, but most of the people behind bars are implicated in violence or stealing property, and we cannot just ignore that. the other thing that the president is overlooking is, when the war on drugs really got rolling 30 years ago, a lot of people pushing it were black

liberal democrats from places places,lan and other who wanted to protect people. their own voters were anxious and worried about the crack epidemic and the violence that came with it. this was a bipartisan, cross racial effort. it's not even the main explanation for why we have a huge number of people behind bars these days. host: professor, do conservatives have it right? guest: the problem is the conservatives jump from saying, well, the liberals are wrong, and they have these conspiracy theories about the cia pushing cocaine on our streets, to saying that everything is fine. it's true that we have a huge number of people behind bars and we are doing very little for them. one of the problems is that conservatives just assumed this is the way we have always done it, we have to protect our people and lock them away from us. if you look at american history, for a long time, our approach

was a very different one. we did not lock people away forever. approach hasive severed them from their families, their jobs, their communities, which are all things that conservatives say they care about in other areas of law. prison itself is a big government institution. prison guard unions have been behind things like that california's three strikes initiative. if you want to think about what's actually going to work and protect people, it is true that criminals have done things that deserve punishment, but is it wise to cut them off from work, family, jobs, to put them in prison, where they will spend years in idleness and network with other gang members and have sporadic brutality and attacks? there have to be other ways that do not maintain the status quo, cost a huge amount of money, and disrupt the lives of family, children, community.

when you hollow out a community like ferguson, missouri, you are taking away a lot of the young men, many of whom had jobs and would be role models, and you have a government trying to collect too much of fines and tickets, just to fund ferguson's annual budget. it's understandable that is going to antagonize minority communities especially. the right has forgotten how to welcome back and reintegrate. there has to be a way forward that is more than just more of the same, a huge expense in money and human lives as well. host: there are bipartisan proposals out there to do something about mandatory sentencing, to give judges more discretion. you write in your piece for thoughal review," "even wrongdoers may deserve to have the book thrown at them, it is not always wise to exact the full measure of justice." with: one of the problems

long mandatory minimums is it assumes people who commit crimes seerational actors, if they a huge, long sentence, they will be deterred or scared away from crime. deterrence, but there is a lot of crime that is not very rational. it's not rational to risk getting shot to steal $300 and a sixpack of beer from a convenience store. a lot of people involved in crime using illegal drugs or alcohol and are mentally ill. they are often very overoptimistic. rather than focusing on long sentences that might or might not ever get up like, we need to think about swifter and more certain, even if they are shorter, approaches to punishment. they take the hardest core drug users and say, we are going to do urinalysis one random day each week.

if we catch you with a dirty urine, you are going to jail for the weekend. but the hardest core users, over 80% of them stopped using right away. theyame people were told need expensive treatment or their problem was intractable. even sentences that are less disruptive of their lives could work. they get the message they can get away with doing crimes over and over here it the same problem with juveniles. if they get the message they can get a slap on the wrist over and over, they get used to crime, they get house with repeat offenders, and it puts them on the road to more crime. there have to be more productive ways to intervene. host: professor, what are your thoughts are when -- your

thoughts on when people are in jail or prison, the programs offered to them? yesterday, we spent time at the correctionalgomery institution, where they offer therapy, workforce training. when they get out, they can go for an interview, interview for the job, talk about their strengths, actually maybe get a job when they get out of jail. what do you make of those programs? guest: i think those are all good, greta. i don't think it's enough. there are laws on the books from the depression era, protectionist laws. they did not want competition from prison industries. prisoners right now cannot work on anything that will be sold across state lines. that shuts down the market for prison labor.

if they are going to have prison industry, they have to pay the .ame wages it is not competitive for anyone to go into prison and set up a factory to work on anything other than license plates. the federal government and texas and louisiana have large enough internal economies that they can have prisoners making desks for the state government, working on farms, and other things. if you want to give people a marketable skill, the best thing to do is to have them working on something while they are in prison so they can get a good worker record -- work record and some marketable skills. you need to loosen up the law so they could do some work on the inside. maybe some of that money could go to pay back the victims, to reconnect them to the women and children they have left hind -- behind, and some of it could go

toward the cost of incarceration. it has to be more productive than just leaving people to sit around all day, watching tv, pumping iron, building up muscle. host: one of the states loosening laws is california. the state may let more inmates fight fires. the state has the largest and oldest firefighting unit. they provide critical assistance to firefighters. prison officials are looking for ways to add inmates. let's get the calls. you can respond to that after we hear from calvin. caller: yeah. yeah. host: you have to listen through your phone. turn your tv down. caller: this is all a bunch of crap about this --

people getelp straightened out. they put you in prison and you do your time, you get out, then you have to go through parole board. if you don't get a job, you are back in prison for another three or four years. all of this is a catch-22. it ain't never- going to change. host: professor bibas, he doesn't think it is ever going to change. guest: i think it can't change. there is reason to be skeptical. it is a crazy thing that we release someone with $20 and a bus ticket. what's that person going to do? go back to deal drugs or working with associates. we've made it hard for them to get jobs. we haven't trained them inside. there are laws that say, not

only can you not be a schoolteacher or a policeman, but you can't be a beautician or a plumber or a septic tank cleaner. we have all of these laws that exclude prisoners from all kinds of work, we make it difficult for them with a big stigma, and we don't have a lot of affirmative programs to connect people with folks on the outside. the next car needs community -- needs community. one of the bright spots is what some of these prison ministries are doing. you cannot force someone to take part, but if someone wants to be part of it, where people from local churches are praying for them, befriending them, helping them change, finding apartments for them on the out, finding a community of people to strengthen them when they are tempted to go back to their ways or to get back on drugs or alcohol, that reduces the chance they will wind up straight back in prison.

what we do right now is stacking the deck, not giving people any kind of helping hand when they come out. we have to punish, but we have to forgive and reintegrate. we can't warehouse people forever. host: mark in injured -- in virginia. good morning. caller: i agree with about 80% of what you are saying. i love your compassion. however, i believe there is a disconnect from the academic world, especially in the african-american community. the nonviolent drug trade is much bigger than you illuminate on tv. aexample.e you the federal government has conspiracy laws. it would be good if you would expand on that with the viewership. that's what's giving the sentencing such an intense,

unbelievable long leash of being able to go off on citizens. but the viewership may not know that an individual can be convicted under the federal conspiracy drug laws, even if not found with any physical drugs, any large amounts of cash , not even being in the act. it takes two or more individuals to say that person participated. that's the first fact. let's say you and i were in a conspiracy. let's say you were bringing 100 kilos per day from: columbia -- from colombia and i took 2 kilos to virginia. i'm going to be responsible within the total weight of the conspiracy. if over three years you doled out 10,000 kilos, i get charged

under that same statute for 10,000 kilos. host: i think we've got your point. stephanos bibas. guest: i'm actually a former federal prosecutor. i've locked up my share of drug dealers. the feds do have a much higher percentage of drug people in the prisons. a smallfeds are only slice of the overall american criminal justice system. only 17% of state prisoners are drug offenders. a lot of them are found -- were found with guns or had violent crimes. i agree that the federal law ought to be reformed. there ought to be a higher threshold, so it is not the low-level junkie who gets a mandatory sentence, but the

trafficker, the enforcer, the one using violence. this is a bipartisan reform effort on the hill. it looks like the judiciary will change that. i think there is room for tough federal sentences, but it needs to be separated out so it is not the low-level guy, but the guy who is involved in violence, the kingpin. 50 grams of crack gets you a 10 year sentence, even though that may not be a big trafficker who is rich, maybe just an outage. host: a democrat in pittsburgh. caller: my question is, why is it that our poverty-stricken neighborhoods they can barely make eight dollars per hour so rich with drugs in our inner-city? i don't get it.

trying toou are not prevent it from getting in the inner-city and giving our young -- they cannot vote. they cannot get life insurance. i think we need to address certain issues. you are making everything more expensive for us that we can barely make it. host: ok. professor? guest: i think it is a valuable point. i have a book the article comes out of, the machinery of -- "the machinery of criminal justice." criminal justice policy is not driven by the needs of local communities. if you do opinion surveys, most people in poor neighborhoods,

white or black, don't want drugs legalized, but they don't want 10 year sentences either. they want police to listen to them about their priorities. i think it is very positive to bring minority communities involved with community policing and say we are really concerned about the dealers on this corner. realistically, we are not going to get rid of drug dealing entirely, but if you can stand out to people on the corners who are shooting bullets at kids as they go to school -- there will be drug dealing that is more discreet and harder for police to catch, but that will make communities stronger. prosecutors are a backstop. even the police have to be a backstop to the neighborhood watch and the pta and the church , whod community groups want to strengthen themselves and their families. there is a lot of demand in

neighborhoods where there isn't a lot of hoped. criminal law can only do so much . what it has to do is back up churches and families in the neighborhood, instead of getting in the way and following them out. you'd -- and hollowing them out. you create a vacuum or void. who will be the father to those children and raise them up? a lot of people going to jail were working lawfully. we need to forgive. children need fathers. often, young men were being authors to the children -- fathers to the children. host:. as a tweet from a viewer who wants to know -- host: here is a tweet from a viewer who wants to know about the cost of all of this. guest: the studies i have seen show the for-profit prisons cost

about the same. in california, it was the prison guards union that was the main bank roller of their three strikes initiative. we had at is more -- very low level of incarceration in the 1960's and 1970's as crime spiked. there is no question that putting people behind bars reduces some kinds of crime. what are the other ways we could spend that money? you could hire more police. at this point, you get more bang for your buck, certainly at a lower human cost. number two, if you take the most violent 5% or 10% off the street, the gang bangers, you are making it safer. if you are taking those who just made a mistake, you may be putting them in a position where they develop more gang networks inside.

it is a sad thing to look at the gangs who have been bred in american prisons, who come back out and are terribly violent. there are better ways to use the money. we can use risk assessment to get a sense of who has a serious, violent record? and can we put the first and second timers into a work program? can we let some of the non-seriously violent people and list in the military? inuntil -- people enlist military? up until world war ii, we did not. you may remember the movie "dirty dozen." people can learn a level of supplying and hard work and self-worth and come out very employable. there are some issues, starting people with lower pay, lower privileges, and letting them earn their way into fully

status, but it's worth trying. host: jeremiah is next, great falls, republican. caller: something i have seen is that they have a program where they have what they call "booter s." while they are incarcerated, they put them in boot camp civilian military training, instead of giving them a trade. i want to know what your comment about that is. host: have you heard of this? guest: boot camps sound like a great idea. by themselves, they don't do much. you are not in the real military. you are not producing other work skills. i imagine that boot camp could be the first part of getting somebody ready to enlist in the military or part of teaching them habits.

when people get out of prison and they don't have basic skills , like showing up to work on -- in prison, you are taught not to make eye contact, not to be polite and friendly. when you come out, you are supposed to smile and be friendly, send thank you notes. it is no surprise that prison is .ot comparing people it's not a bad idea if you combine it with some real work. then again, you have to look out for the fraction of people, the homicidal maniacs who are never going to qualify for this, but that's only a sliver of the people behind bars. byron, good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: you have hit on several of the points i was going to make. biblical hope would help a lot. the prison industry, from the lawyers to the judges to the cops to the prosecutors to the parole officers -- that's a lot

of it. leash.nt people on a there used to be a time in this land when they would say, "go west, young man." start a new life. you can't do that anymore. host: i'm going to jump in. that is sort of the essence of the book you wrote. guest: that's right. "the machinery of criminal justice" is about that. it's not that they are bad or evil, but they get jaded. they see the people not as flesh and blood. they turn into a number or another case file on the plea bargaining assembly line that ships people along. the public wants justice. the public wants to have a say in justice. a lot of my book is about how can we reimport minority

communities to tell the police and prosecutors how to focus their enforcement ironies, not on the numbers on their belt, but cleaning up the crimes that are really hurting the community, not just the ones that maximize statistics. the public cares about racial justice. there are ways you can tell drug enforcement to do reverse things . they cost a little more and they are more work, but they catch the buyers coming in from the suburbs. whether it is black or white, the people coming into the system are coming in because they have a problem. often, they know right from wrong. they may be kind of ashamed and kind of sorry, but what do we do about it? the public system does not have good reentry. the lawyers viewed our job as done by the time the person went away to prison. the prisons are out of sight, out of mind, far away, but it is

those community groups that need to work with them so that they get something while they are there. they were originally about people getting a chance to repent and be penitent about what they had done wrong. now they are just idle. we need to work on prisoners rather than just throwing them away. there but for the grace of god go i. most of them are going to come back. we are not keeping most of them for their lives. they are going to go back to live among the same family and friends and community they victimized and there has to be some kind of process of healing and reintegration and going back to work. from you.s hear caller: following up on the tweet moment ago, would you address the morality of a for-profit prison, a corporation

that profits from it? guest: personally, i don't see the problem of a corporation profiting as being that different from public prison guard unions and others profiting. i think they are all troubling. the self-interest of the people involved -- i would not necessary -- necessarily say they are being consciously greedy, but if you are a prosecutor rewarded on condition statistics -- conviction statistics or a cop rewarded on arrest statistics -- if you are a prison guard union, you have the incentive to have all of these cells. you can be a well-meaning judge or prosecutor or defense lawyer, and you just use your job as moving these cases along and getting your job done within a

reasonable time so you can go home to your family and dinner. the public doesn't look at it that way. we want justice. we want mercy, too. mercy matters. when you have a flesh and blood victim and defendant, it is the victim who doesn't get listened to. they are not as eventual as ngeful think -- as ve as people think. andng the victim more say, the committee to and others -- thened by the prime community and others threatened by the crime. host: given what you said, what is your reaction to the supreme court yesterday here in two cases, one on the death penalty from florida and the other on licenses for juveniles?

they ruled recently that the court -- ruled 5-4 that judges must be allowed to are morewhether inrminors open to rehabilitation. the supreme court is hearing a case about whether or not that should be retroactive. what do you think? guest: in one of the cases, it's about whether the jury gets the final say knowing it is responsible for sentencing someone to death. it's in florida that the judge can override that. the jury is not aware it is supposed to be authorizing the final call. it's important to be the the people tor be the final say. it ought to be clear to them they have that say. in the other case, the retroactivity issue is

technical. the broader point about juveniles who aren't killers understanding they have a chance for mercy, because they may not be as blameworthy. 20 years, 30 years from now, they may not be the same person. theydea that they might -- ought to have a chance to go before a parole board, show they have made amends, that they are different people -- there is some common sense behind that idea. at least for non-homicidal crimes, someone who is a 40-year-old or 50-year-old may deserve a second chance for what he did that was stupid when he was 15 years old. host: a couple reactions from folks on twitter. "if they can train for jobs in prison, why not train before they commit crimes that send them there?" "some prisoners actually do deserve to be there for the rest of their lives. we owe tehme only humane treat -- them only humane treatment,

but --" caller: we have been criminals ever since they took us from africa, kidnapped us, and incarcerated us on the plantation. the emancipation proclamation did not free us. we didn't get any land. what we got was further incarceration. host: professor, go ahead. guest: i think there are grave injustices, but it's worth noting that most victims of black criminals are black victims. most crime is interracial. -- intraracial. the community can't stand having gang members killing their own people. the has to be forgiving -- there has to be forgiveness.

she has never said the word