president obama's veto of the national defense bill. ♪ it is "the washington journal" for october joint fourth. hillary clinton, bernie sanders, and other candidates gather in iowa tonight for a campaign related event for democrats. you can see coverage of that at 9:00. go to c-span.org for more information. to begin iowa, two new polls show that dr. ben carson is leading donald trump. dr. carson in an interview yesterday said he is pleased of the showing, but knows his campaign is a marathon. donald trump, at an event yesterday, expressed skepticism about the polls taken.

in our first 45 minutes, we want to hear from you, not only about the polls, but the potential of ben carson becoming presidential nominee for president. ben carson supporters, (202) 748-8000. donald trump supporters, (202) 748-8001. if you support other gop .andidates, (202) 745-8002 if you want to send us a tweet on this, you can do so at @cspanwj. you can post on her facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. if you want to send us an e-mail, it is journal@c-span.org . the first polls we will point you to, it shows that among those going to participate in caucus, benan carson moved into a dominant position in iowa. the new paul shows that the retired neurosurgeon -- the new retiredws that the

neurosurgeon is backed by 28% of likely republicans, up by 10%. for dr.kely to caucus carson are drawn by history and status as a non-politician. site, go to the polling it shows a little bit of a breakdown of how republicans think about their first race and second choice for candidates. 28% show that dr. ben carson would be the first choice. the second choice, 19% showing ir'sld trump would be the first choice, and a second choice, only 9% expressing that. again, your thoughts on dr. ben carson leading in iowa. poll, buthat another poll showing that as

well. (202) 748-8000 for carson supporters. (202) 748-8001 for donald trump supporters. if you support other gop candidates. dr. carson was on bloomberg news , getting interviewed, not only about the poll, but other issues when it comes to the campaign. he differs inow policy, when it comes to donald trump. he listed two examples. here is part of the interview from yesterday. [video clip] >> one would be on the taxation plan. he feels that a substantial number of people should be excluded from federal taxes, and i do not. havel like everyone has to skin in the game. the other thing is on illegal immigrants. anould give people opportunity, and it would be a defined period of time to register and pay back tax .enalty

>> it would be a path to legal status for people who are currently illegal now? to legal status, but not citizenship. >> not deportation like donald trump suggests? >> i do not think that is practical. it was about 401 likely caucus participators , andcipating in the poll another with 500 participating, showing again, dr. ben carson 2 28% toald trump,

20%. tops donaldt carson trump, and men are divided by 25% backing been carson, and 24% backing donald trump. i, your thoughts on been carson. (202) 748-8000 for carson supporters. (202) 748-8001 for donald trump supporters. if you support other gop candidates. we will start this morning with chris and dallas, texas, a supporter of other candidates. first and foremost, what do you think about this latest information about ben carson? caller: i do not think it is oo's uprising. iowa has a strong evangelical base, and donald trump has struggled to connect with the

evangelicals. i think the evangelicals were able to smell out one of their own and been carson, and that is who they are committed to. who are you supporting currently? caller: i'm still undecided. mr. trump and mr. carson both alarm me. they bring nothing as far as foreign-policy experience to the table. i understand that many members of my party are attracted to an outsider, and i get that. the washington establishment has been bad. washington the republicans, and they are a mess, a disaster we can not have a world leader who has never been on a world stage before. dr. carson, and for all of his ,irtues, he certainly has some

knows nothing about foreign-policy. he openly espouses that he will learn along the way. the last time there was a major storm here, about a month ago, he was asked what he would do in the event of a hurricane, and he said, i don't know. we are down the barrel of a hurricane right now. concepts.not abstract these are things that actually happened. trumpfrontline for supporters, tony is in tampa, florida. good morning. caller: i have a big-time trump supporter. i think ben carson is out of his league. let's be real. this guy has been city council, mayor, senator, nothing. in business. zero and military. bringhas a plan to jobs back. he knows how to deal with these foreign countries. if you read his book, he laid out that bin laden would be a

problem. he was against the iraq war. be cute saying he has no experience, but let's be honest, with bush and obama, what inhods did they make a the middle east with their great experience and advisors. i think trump is an organizer with experience. he will find the generals that will know exactly what to do. as a president, you do not have to be experienced in everything, you have to denote leadership. trump gives us back. i look at ben carson and hear no issues from him. unlimited a limited -- food stamps. he has no standard on anything. even with emigration now, he is bending back on that. before, he was totally against it. we have already put up with what president would no experience,

who has gotten us into all kinds of problems financially. no law and order in the country, releasing prisoners, we cannot go down that road again. again, the lines this morning. if you support been carson, (202) 748-8000. if you support donald trump, (202) 748-8001. if you support other candidates and the gop field, (202) 745-8002. looking at the handling of issues, it is been carson that leads in one area, 31% of republicans think he can bot bet handle social issues. in other issues, it is donald trump leading on the economy, taxes, and illegal immigration. also noting that both donald trump and marco rubio are close when it comes to foreign-policy, dr. ben carson coming in at 9% on this idea of foreign-policy. a trump supporter from alabama

is next. this is blake. hello. think mr. trump is producing superbly for iowa. he has tactfully and established himself in iowa. he has next opportunity. get -- he needs to very clear himself as an alternative candidate for the establishment. of the real,s 20% hard-core conservatives, and religious people in iowa. there is nobody on the establishment side that has any chance in iowa. all he needs to do is but all his effort in the establishment

category in iowa. if he wins iowa, if trump wins iowa, he will be the nominee. there's no stopping him in new hampshire or north carolina. host: been carson's campaign putting out ads about his campaign. here is one called "we the people" that is airing. [video clip] >> this country was designed around, "we the people." we did it government that understands that and does not think it is the ruler of the people. i'm learning from the crowds that they are hungry for some honesty and real solutions to the problems that ls. i've been carson and i approved this message. host: gary is up next, line for other gop candidates from iowa. republicanm a former

.f 30 years i have been an evangelical activist for most of that time. my buddy and i are always working at the church to get christians involved. they think politics is dirty and want to throw to the dogs. we have been working at the church. the thing about ben carson -- i'm a little nervous here -- my wife and i are heading off to a cruz rally this morning. my pastor and i have gone around about politics, whether christians should be involved or not. he is all in for carson. i've never seen anything like it, the involvement the i am .eeing they like his style. they like his soft-spoken. they feel he is honest. for years, it has been a challenge to get christians involved in quote unquote dirty politics to clean it up.

now, we really got something. cruz.ll in for ted i do like carson, but something is really going on at the evangelical base in iowa. i'm very close to it. thank you. host: j is on our line for those that support dr. carson. from maryland, hello. caller: hi. i like carson because of the fact that he seems to take a logical approach to things, not trying to ride the tide of the he is trying to approach things logically. we really need to do that in this country. host: as far as these recent polls, do you think this will bear itself out as far as in leading and i what? -- in iowa? caller: it is hard to say. i do stand there is a portion of

evangelicals that support him perhaps i dohat not. i'm not a good barometer for the rest of the country, but to the sayingthat what he's makes sense, i think that will bode well for the rest of the campaign. host: on twitter, robert says that carson's comments trump trump every day. jodi says, there is more than a year to go before the election, we cannot read everything into .he new leader in the polls ask your thoughts on dr. ben carson, two new polls show him leading in iowa. cameron from union, washington -- sorry, albert from chicago, illinois, trump supporter. just want to piggyback on something that the first caller said, regarding ben carson's lack of foreign-policy

experience. i saw the breakdown in one of those polls where 42% of voters -- the attraction was his lack of foreign-policy experience. that will go a long way at the next g-8 summit. what will he talk about? the bible and brain surgery? host: when it comes to donald trump, what does he bring to the foreign-policy field, why do you support him? caller: actually, i don't support donald trump. my view of the republican field, i will just say this, i know i've not qualified to be president. i know that about myself. i am more qualified than any one of those. host: again, republicans only this round, especially if you youchoosing one that support. been carson supporters, (202)

748-8000. donald trump supporters, (202) 748-8001. cameron, a trump supporter from washington. you are next. caller: i would like to say a couple of comments about how i support drum. i would like to ask you first, pedro, at c-span, i watch every morning, and i don't think i have ever seen you have the same guest on in a short amount of time. i'm referring to lanny davis, i think you have him on twice in one week. that was proceeding this important committee hearing for hillary clinton. it almost seemed to me to be activist, down someone who is so in the camp of the clintons to have him on twice. has that happened before? what let me explain happened. we had lenny davis scheduled for our program on monday from houston. was starting to

fade, and fat, we could not get a signal, so we ended the segment early. with that in mind, we invited on because it failed on monday. that is why that happened on money. -- monday. you for clearing that up. i did not know that. the reason i support donald trump is the reason that some others have, first of all, jobs. he understands business, he loves this country. sort of predicting what is good and bad, that is true. debt, andt the tax reduce base, he wants to burdenes, reduce the tax on business. i heard that ireland has a 7% corporate tax that will be a

vacuum for corporations to move to ireland. he understands business. i also appreciate that he is using his own money initially. he is not bought and sold by wall street or any lobbyist. i would honor that by making a donation to him. i think, as time goes on, there will be even more information coming out. from his tax plan, he has a lot to offer. i want to make a point too that ben carson would not be as good of a candidate because he does not have so much business experience. , andhing they both have their favor, they are not liars. i do not want to criticize the president, but he is a liar, and extreme liar, so is hillary clinton. one last point, the caller from texas that called first cause

days,every three identifies as republican, but goes for the throat of conservatives. supportsyton, who other gop candidates, you are next up. caller: speaking on behalf of carson and trump, i know they are smart men. think they are qualified to run the government. i do not think have enough experience in foreign policy and dealing with other world leaders. i do not think they have what it takes to run the government. businessmen, and sparkman, as they are, but as far as -- and they are, but as far as dealing with other countries, our allies, i do not

think they have enough experience. host: is their current gop candidate that you are supporting the hazmat? caller: yes, there is. i believe he is a god-fearing , and standing behind his word. host: who is that? caller: not because i am from arkansas, but governor mike huckabee. i think he has a lot to bring to the table. for governor, of arkansas, a few years, i think he will turn america around again. clayton from arkansas. "the wall street journal" takes a look at the recent polls and talks about the can see of donald trump.

host: here is donald trump from last night at a town hall event in miami, talking about the new poll numbers that came out in iowa. [video clip] >> my wife called, she said, are

you ok, how bad is it? they make it sound like it is the greatest defeat in history. it would not have even been mentioned, it would not be a story, but then, i said to myself, look, going to be nice. i'm going to be nice because i have to talk about it. >> [indiscernible] >> thank you. ben carson is the one leading in iowa. i said, i have to talk about it. a friend of mine, who happens to be a great, great athlete, he happens to be african-american, he calls himself black. say that, it's not politically correct. it's true. he said, donald, you are the greatest trash talker that ever lived. i said, i never thought i would say about white guy. you believe this? i said, i do not know if that is true or not. he said, when you said, low energy for bush, you do find him

so incredibly. it was over. he can have $125 million in the bank, it's over. it was just defined. i said, been carson is super low energy, right? super low energy. we need tremendous energy. host: if you want to see the full event that took place in miami, go to our website at c-span.org and see it there. let's hear from a carson supporter in pennsylvania. hi, bruce. you are on, go ahead. caller: ok. we need people like ben carson -- people in washington have special interests, they just want to keep their jobs.

we have to put an end to this. as far as the democrats and hillary clinton, the only thing is she will sell the other half of our plutonium to russia. host: if you shows common sense, what is a policy area where he shows common sense, a specific one? caller: common sense is getting the professional people to deal with foreign policy. our president, he has people who advised him on foreign policy. he is an ideologue. he does not listen. people, that support other nations are starting to turn away from us because he does not take the advice that he gets. he goes by what he wants, and

what he thinks. , i willng about people do this for you, that for you, then, when you get in, although, you elected me to do these things, but i think this should be done. these people should be held accountable. there is no accountability in the political system today. host: let's hear from caprice in virginia, who supports other gop candidates. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i understand very much why people want to vote for donald trump and ben carson. they both have really great ideas. i really believe that. i would pray that the people of iowa take the time to take a good look at ted cruz. to me, he is the new patrick henry.

he is the person that loves this country with all his heart and it, andd has fought for stood, and then honest, and told the truth. he is the whole ball of wax. he is everything. i do hope that the people iowa will take a good look at him before they decide to cast their vote for someone else. host: ted cruz participating in iowa yesterday, also participating in a c-span call-in, we will show you a bit of that in a moment. we also want to highlight an event going on in iowa, this one featuring democrats. a write up about it in "the new york times" this morning.

host: again, the jefferson jackson dinner takes place at 9:00 this evening. you can watch it live on c-span. bernie sanders, martin o'malley, hillary clinton participating. find out more information on it at c-span.org. forn is up next, line support of other gop candidates, he is from iowa. caller: i have a couple of comments about ben carson. and hope you'll give me the time to make the comments. i will be quick. i think been carson, while he is probably certainly a talented brain surgeon, really lacks a

lot of common sense outside the surgery room. i think, first of all, he would d perpetuate and make worse the drug war, and secondly, probably because of his religious views. he wants me to comment on tv that he thought people only become gay, or some be like that, because they go to prison, and they become gay in prison. showt think that does not , whatever.nfused host: kansas city, missouri, a donald trump supporter. caller: joni. would ber. carson absolutely perfect, and i hope somebody appoints him. i hope president tromp appoints him as director of health,

education, and welfare. i think that would be perfection. i would never support him for president. lifelongaunch democrats, and no one is asking parents, and, uncles, they have always been democrats, i have always voted voting for i will be donald trump as president, why will not vote for president. i do not care if there were 50 or 100 people with billions and billions of dollars, they would not spend one cent of their own money. he is doing this. . cannot stand the super pac's they do run everything. anything excepting those -- anyone excepting those, i would have nothing to do with it. host: brad, michigan, line for

donald trump supporters. caller: i have a statement about donald trump, and all politicians, and the precious polls. i do not believe the polls. the poll is built around what they want the poll to say. i'm very dubious about poll results. i wish there were some that i could believe, by really do not believe any of them. host: (202) 748-8000 for carson supporters. (202) 748-8001 for trump supporters. (202) 745-8002 if you support other gop candidates. politico put together a list of 10 carson's most controversial quotes, they call it. to highlight one, on nazi germany, "i think the likelihood of hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the -- i grew been armed

up in the slums of detroit, and saw plenty of gun violence, both of my cousins were killed on the streets, as a doctor, i pulled bullets out of the body, by ."ve politico.nd that at donna is calling in from georgia, go ahead. caller: i was just calling to respond to the poll. of course, we have got to have leadership. that is missing in this country, that we don't have. my first choice is ted cruz. my second choice would be been carson. exemplify theoth

things that we are fighting for for this country to survive. host: let me ask you, what keeps been carson from being a first choice to you? guest: i think it is his lack of experience. that would be my number one. off-the-cuff. host: what is it about senator cruz that he is first choice for you? caller: he is experienced. he is a senator. he has a background. he shows very -- he takes a strong positions, and is not afraid to be challenged. ben carson does as well, but as i said, it is his background, the only thing that holds me back. host: gary, jacksonville,

florida, a donald trump supporter. caller: good morning. yes, i'm a donald trump supportive. i guess i would like to address some of these other callers who claim that donald trump does not have any foreign-policy experience. yes, that is true, however, donald trump is a self-made man, a self-made billionaire. above all else, he can negotiate. if we hadhought that had donald trump, or donald negotiatingtee and we would notty, have ended up getting our clocks cleaned like they did. host: been carson leading into likely caucus participants. we want your thoughts on that, on that, and been carson

supporters. been carson, putting out several in support of his campaign. we should you want earlier. [video clip] >> did you know that washington is built on a swamp? massive government debt, stifling legislation, special interest politics, partisan dysfunction. now all makes sense. washington is broken. , we can drain the swamp , and protect our children's future. i've been carson, and i approved this message. here is debbie, laguna woods, california, a donald trump supporter. caller: hi. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: there are a lot of

things, various things, that i like about the different gop candidates. at this point, i think trump would make the best choice as president because of the economy and our country. debtor nation, we will never be able to take our place on the world stage again. i think he can get us on track economically with jobs, trade, , just overall, economically, i think he is the best choice. host: angel from new jersey, a been carson supporter. hello. you are on, go ahead. saying thatsimply he is not ready for the number one job of this country. yes. they are not ready for the number one job of this country,

simply because their concerns.licy they cannot tell us anything about foreign-policy. with that, i've will not be voting for anyone of them. from newt is angel jersey. "the washington post" this morning takes a look at a review going on by the justice department, take a look at the irs. saying that there will be no criminal charges filed into the two-year investigation as to officialsy irs committed crimes in connection with handling of tax exemption applications. our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of this management, poor judgment, and , writtenonal inertia .n an eight page letter

he went on to say, poor management is not a crime, we found no evidence that any irs official acted on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or any other motive that would support a criminal prosecution. host: louise, fredericksburg, virginia, you are next. caller: good morning. i like ben carson as a human being. i like jeb bush because of his experience. i think -- i know he is an honest person. i would much rather choose jeb bush. i do not think we need another senator to run the country. we have had kerry, clinton, ,bama, biden -- all senators and as we can see, the world is a mess, and the economy has not improved. to any degree, no structural reforms whatsoever. i will support jeb bush because in the whiteency

house, and i want experience. not wantump, -- i do to discourage dollar job because he did bring up some good points about what is going on in the world, the country. remember, this meant supports imminent domain. he does not mind the government confiscating private lands. in 1991, he was begging the congress to bring back appreciation, real estate. he is a government welfare king. host: let me ask you a question, the front page of "the washington post" this morning talks about the jeb bush campaign, saying some massive restructuring going on, cutting costs, and things like that because of concerns about spending. does that concern you at all? caller: no, it doesn't. right now, he is running like

fourth. yes, i would definitely cut some costs. ideas on theood reform of the education system. we cannot afford to have eight years of somebody who does not change the educational system, who really, truly, does not help the people. myself, personally, i know that 1989 was the last raise that my husband received. $50, in theg beginning of it 1980's, and that did not receive another increase. then, we lost in the stock market, and got hit again in 2008. anybody who watches c-span understands that reform of the housing market was top priority

for president bush and his team. the democrats refused. we have had an $800 billion so-called investment in shovel , and we have seen it has not improved lives at all. jost: jess in maryland, -- eff in maryland. a been carson supporter. caller: i used to be very ningng, but i am wa away. i still support been carson, and here is why. he is very logical and smart, intelligent. ,e need to see him be confident be able to look decisive, a leader, a president.

ideas, a man will excel. when we see candidates who are , been carson,calm wake up, and start leading, really viciousness, fierce. at the rate he is moving on, trump will trump him because of his energy. friday, a budget reconciliation package was adopted. it would repeal core components of the affordable care act. there was no chance of it becoming law, and comes just days before the government will default on its debt, unless congress takes action. while the reconciliation package

can be adopted in the republican-controlled senate majority, it faces certain veto by president obama. criticizes will think it does not go far enough. washe house, the vote 240-189, mostly following party lines. mona, good morning from maryland, a donald trump supporter. caller: i certainly am. i think he will do well for the country. i think things will go better. as far as the other ca commentsi ,ould like to see him win and i would like to see been carson run with him. i knew that -- would happen. the democrats are godless, corrupt, and they are evil people. we new that was going to happen.

that was my comment. i really like donald trump, and i really hope he wins. host: it been carson supporter, this is joe. joe is an columbia, south carolina. caller: how are you doing? host: well, thanks. thaty, i like the idea donald trump is bringing awareness to the dislike of politicians. been carson, i like his religious conviction, so to speak. he hast think experience. i think they will chew him up, to be honest. the only thing about donald , he brings the dislike of

usiticians that a lot of regular people, meeting those of us who have real jobs, and our taxes taken out, our budgets, and so forth. ben carsonn carson -- does continue to bring up the religious aspect, by do not think he will be able to handle the political arena. they show that with our current president. president obama, with think tried his best. "the wall street journal" highlights that the back-and-forth going on in washington over raising the debt limit, john boehner does not want to leave increasing the debt limit, feeling that paul hean, who will succeed him -- had little time to dispatch one

of the most controversial issues, giving him no choice to bring to the house floor legislation raising the bar weight limit with no policy strings attached. cedent, we pres republicans have said they will raise the debt limit, only other measures are passed to reduce federal spending. one more comment on ben carson, and your view of him. linda from new york, a donald trump supporter. i'm not atually, donald trump supporter, it is the only line i could get through on.

i love ben carson, but do not think he will make it through. as far as donald trump goes, he sounds like a democrat, can't say anything intelligent, call people names. my choice would be john kasich and marco rubio. if people are smart, they will not vote for trump. host: that is the last call we will take on this comment. up, keeping with campaign 2016, the topic of money comes up. who is winning the money race? the center for public integrity process ys dave levinthal joined us.

before we go on to those events, i want to show you an event that happened last night on c-span. ted cruz joined steve's goalie for a call in -- steve' scully for a call-in program. [video clip] >> it was a pretty reasonable day, began at about 8:00 a.m. i've been on the road, did six or seven town halls across the state, traveling town to town through iowa. in between, i have done radio interviews, a few meetings. tonight, i have about three hours to drive, and then i will crash, get a few hours sleep, and then get up in the morning, and travel across the great state of iowa. >> how are you preparing for the debate on wednesday? >> i have a great team of people that i like and trust that spend time advising me. we have done a number of

goks, do some questions, back and forth. as the debate approaches, i spent time getting some sleep, in quiet, solitude, and reading the bible, trying to get in the mindset to express a positive message that will resonate. after the first debate, and the 100 hours that followed it, we raised over $1 million as people all over the country went to .org and supported the campaign. after the second campaign, we raised $1 million and 48 hours z.orgople went to tedcru from all over the country. i've been very encouraged about the response. i hope we will keep building the momentum and see conservatives behind our campaign. is snl asked you to host

a program, would you do it? >> absolutely. i think their political satire is hilarious. isil bernie sanders the other day, i called him larry for larry david because oma goodness, larry david -- that was bernie. he has captured him perfectly. i would love to have the chance to do it. i'm sure donald would knock it out of the park. >> "washington journal" continues. aboutwe're talking presidential campaign fund-raising. when it comes the winners and losers, who is leading? on the democratic side, hillary clinton and bernie sanders both have been putting up seriously good numbers. hillary clinton, that is not unexpected at all. she has been through this rodeo

several times. by virtue of what we know, from third 2008 campaign, she was coming into 2016 with an absolute juggernaut of a political machine. she has a ground game out of the box. that, even a pac's couple of years prior to her running, were already raising money in anticipation to her running. could have predicted what bernie sanders would do. he does not have a super pac. is not someone that everybody knows, a household name. he has been able to galvanize hundreds of thousands of americans, many of whom have written a five dollar check, $10 check, or gone online and made a donation. isthe republican side, it all over the place. just a couple of top numbers hisd be jeb bush, though campaign, in and of itself, is

struggling. these outside groups, not a super pac, but an organization that can raise and spend an unlimited amount of money bush hasdidate -- jeb been raising more than $100 million. likely that number is a lot more g inuse there is a la disclosure. donald trump, he is sort of a super pac in and of himself. he is a billionaire. he has a lot of money. host: he just opens his checkbook. guest: the real question with him is how much is he willing to going to beat is potentially a protracted, extremely long, very competitive campaign with multiple, legitimate candidates on the .epublican side

host: hillary clinton to in bernie9 million, be sanders, 26 million, we mentioned ted cruz, 12 million. is this money that comes directly to the campaign from everyday americans? talking twoe parallel tracks. the money that candidates are .aising in their own campaign people are limited in how much they can ultimately give to those candidates. it is excellent way $700 for an individual like you are me to give to a candidate for election . we're talking about the primary, $2700.700 -- however, a super pac that may be supporting hillary clinton clinton, ben carson, jeb bush, get as much you can as you can give. it might be $1 million, $10

million. there is history and precedent givingnmaker types incredible amounts of money, both in previous residence elections, and this current presidential election. that money can be used for television ads, digital ads, and lately, we're seeing an evolution where that money, to -- carly fiorina is an example -- even being used fundraisers,vents, all these types of things that are couple of years ago, prior versuscitizens united federal election commission decision which really change the way money in politics worked in this country, would have been unthinkable. guest, dave levinthal, of the center for public

integrity. he is their senior political writer, giving us information about who is getting money, and how they are spending it. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. .202) 745-8002 for independents those are the numbers to call if you want to ask them questions. information that came from the fec, as far as campaign donations, you kind of highlighted this, but in the $200 and under category, about $112 million was taken in. over,t goes to the $2000 $109 million taken in. you have various degrees in between. guest: we often like to talk about big dollar donors and small dollar donors. small dollar donors are people giving less than $200 to a candidate. let's take one example.

hillary clinton, her campaign raised -- justin this last quarter, the third quarter of fromear -- about 17% people hobbling together these , $200 donations. bernie sanders raised over 75% of its total amount of money from small dollar donors. it is an interesting measure in the sense that it can speak to, and be a barometer for, that supporte groundswell that many candidates will need be healthy, energize, translate into volunteers. , for exampletes like i was a have a caucus, where it is essential to get , theneighbors, family local middle school, fire hall to go support a candidate on the

night the you caucus, that can make a difference. often times, candidates who are able to get the small donations -- sure, the money is great, but there may be additional meaning to it that will help them particularly in those retail politics, grassroots states like iowa, new hampshire, and even nevada come over south carolina, which are not exactly california or texas. badt: a batch of honor -- ge of honor. guest: absolutely. is saying,e punditry hillary clinton, sure, she may be that candidate of the establishment on the democratic side, but is she really energizing people in getting them excited about her second presidential campaign in eight years. host: when it comes to the choi $2700 cap, how-

was that established? guest: it goes back several years. write as to if you can check for $1 million, that could have a more or less corrupting influence on that candidate. without getting into the whole history, that was the underlying notion of why campaign contribution limits were important. , everythat typically election cycle, will adjust, $100-$200 for inflation. last election cycle. every election cycle, it goes up a little bit, but also, it is competing with political organizations that may raise unlimited amounts of money to advocate for candidate, and

again, they cannot directly interface with the campaign, in the sense that they are sitting at a table like this saying, we will buy these ads in new hampshire, and you buy those ads in iowa. that is what is known as a legal coordination -- illegal coordination. many campaigns are walking a fine line between the relationship of the campaign operation, and the relationship that the campaign has with super pac's. we wrote a story recently about how jeb bush's campaign is run by many of jeb bush's close into men's, and even the super pac supporting him in the campaign, they share the same vendors, and some cases. you have to remember the jeb bush was the animating force for his own super pac, prior to him becoming a candidate. there are lots of arguments on the left and right as to whether this is legal or not, ethical or

not. the fact of the matter, this is the way it is working now, for better or worse. it is pushing some of the , five plus years after the citizens united decision. host: let's go to our first call. richmond, texas, larry, go ahead. caller: yes, i have worked hard and earned by money, why does feel it isment ok to muzzle me and tell me how much money i can spend to elect a candidate that i think is best for this country? guest: there is a school of thought out there that is exactly that, the idea that, ok, we have the first amendment, if a person wants to engage in political speech, why would they by choice ofmited a hundred dollars, in this case. that is a major argument, particularly among the

libertarians, and some conservatives. they say, look, super pac's are a great thing guest: the fact that somebody may give as much as they want stakes to the colors point. it is something that has been argued and upheld, but many people would love to see campaign contributions done away with. fromieve the caller was texas, if i am correct. i was in texas last weekend and had an adjusting panel with the texas ethics commission. during the discussion, they

brought up the fact that in were not aspac's consequential. the statestates at level, there are different rules for different states. texas and virginia would be two good examples where the rules are different from those for the congressional or presidential level. john up next. caller: my question for mr. leventhal is with the super pac's, in the last few election cycles, we have had examples of money coming in from overseas. how is that monitored? to be stronger

regulations to track that money as it comes in so that mickey mouse and homer simpson can't donate? guest: the federal election commission when it comes to any type of political committee, they have a staff. it is a very small agency, not terribly well funded. staff that does check the validity of contributions. who is see somebody making a donation and they missed their address in saudi be,ia or whatever it may they will look into it to some degree. often times they will send the campaign and notice saying, here are 20 donations that look suspect. they seem like they could have the potential for breaking the

rules on foreign citizen making a donation. can you provide us more detail. it will be incumbent on the campaign to explain exactly what they did. there have been cases where campaigns have taken in illegal contributions and have had to pay a fine and give the money back. with super pac's, the same deal. follow the lawto when it comes to getting contributions from legal sources. is thates get murky after the citizens united decision, it empowered certain types of nonprofit organizations to take money and then spend unlimited amounts of money through a super pac to advocate for and against a politician. particularly on the right, but some very notable examples on the left, political nonprofits spring up. they do not have to disclose

their donors. super pac's it do have to disclose their donors. sort of the specter of foreign contributions or illegal contributions, that becomes a bit more in play on the nonprofit side in the sense that if you have a nonprofit, you don't need to disclose your donors. if you have a nonprofit group spending 2 million dollars on inadequate ad campaign for pick your republican or democratic candidate as a member of the public or media, you can't find actuallyitively who is providing that nonprofit the money to go ahead and fund all of those attack as it are saying horrible, nasty, awful things about a candidate you like or considering supporting or don't. that is going to be a very 2016esting frontier in the

election. nonprofits that have the ability to spend up to half their money by law on politics. what they are going to do and how they are going to spend the 2014, 2012,did in and we will see more in 2016. pac's supporting donald trump shutting down. >> we wrote notices and notifications, sent them to the government, to the people, to everybody that we don't want super pac's, we don't want anything to do with them, to close them up ideally -- >> hopefully to get the

money back. opened the art of the deal super pac, named after my book. we're having a new book come out on november 3. i think it's going to be great. the art of the deal super pac. true, i, probably it is don't want it. i don't want any help. the one thing we do, people send in small donations, like small ones. four-page7.50 with a letter. , $250, but that i love because you can't send it back. how do you send a letter back to a woman who loves the country that is like giving a million

dollars to a rich person. how do you send $7.50 back? you can't. there is no letter you can write. it's true. there is no letter you can write to that woman to say we don't want your money. ok? we take it, it comes in, but we don't want the big money. we don't want any big money. today, i started getting big press this evening because nobody has ever done it. i disclaimed and is about all super pac's. i don't want any of them. [applause] fair to say that he is in a unique position to say that. is his ownld trump super pac, make no mistake. he can write a check for whatever he wants. he gets into his own organization. individual, ross perot in 1992 and 1996, where he

self-funded for the most part his own campaign. donald trump is saying that he is effectively going to do that. he did send a letter, his campaign did, to the federal election commission, not something he had to do, to say what he said during that campaign event, that there are eight super pac's, political committees that are using my name, i disavow them. i don't want anything to do with them. it's going to be up to them. the way it works is if you start a super pac, the candidate can't do anything about it. if you want to follow the rules and support a certain candidate and do it through a super pac, it is up to you. it is an outrageous and extreme a couple of came months ago about a super pac support him bernie sanders. nobody has been more out there and vocal and eloquent about his hatred for super pac's, and yet

there was a guy who started a probe ernie -- bernie sanders super pac. this individual had a long history, arrested, outstanding warrants currently in arizona dealings and whatnot, and he ultimately got some major donors to pony up for him, including, believe it or not, daniel craig, the actor who played james bond gave about $50,000 to the super pac not realizing what the deal was here. bernie sanders sent him a cease-and-desist letter. shut it down. go away. , you can run a super pac and a candidate can't do it because technically they are independent. with this levinthal talking about 2016 fundraising. 202-748-8001 for republicans.

202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independence. don from for ginny. caller: thanks for taking my call. my dad used to tell me one thing, you call the things what they are. when you give money to a of dollars,illions i don't care if you call it a super pac or union, you are bribing that person. goodis why we can't have leaders in this country, because the money that is involved in politics today, there is no good person who can run the system. furthermore, when the super pac gave you money, they don't stay there. they will go to the capitol hill and change the law. they want you to do what they expect to give you. this is the problem. furthermore, i'm so disappointed that the judges in this country who are one of the best country we live in agree that me and

walmart we have equal what we pay. how can i pay what walmart can pay? -- how can i pay what walmart can pay? who is the politician going to listen? they are going to listen to the person with the most money. i think we need to take our country back. we've seen donald trump, hillary clinton, we are 380 million people in this country and these are the only people who qualify to be president. let's get real here. thank you very much. host: the color makes a very interesting point. look at the polls right now. who is leading in the polls. guest: on the republican side, donald trump. ben carson is there. carly fiorina has dropped what has been up there in the polls. what is interesting about ben carson and donald trump?

donald trump is saying that i hate super pac's. i don't want them. i love his little donations. ben carson has also said that i don't want billionaire money here. i am not interested in it. on the republican side, nobody has collected a greater degree of small dollar contributions among republicans than ben carson. on the democratic side, bernie sanders as we talked about a moment ago is getting roughly 75% of his total campaign cash haul from people who are giving small dollar donations. there doesn't seem to be a sentiment in the body politic that hey, we are going to hitch our wagon here a little bit to candidates who have more on the left and right a populist tone toe, who are not speaking

big corporations are big unions or the establishment or the politics that have come in the past. they are looking on the left and the right to different types of candidates now. without be the case in four months? we may be having a different conversation at that point. -- will that be the case in four months? that sentiment is real. that feeling is real out there. if you didn't, you wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people opening their wallets and giving small dollar donations to support not the establishment type candidates, but they are going to ted cruz, ben carson, donald trump, bernie sanders. host: florida, here is pam. pam from homestead, florida. let's go to joseph, joseph in fort lauderdale, florida. good morning. guest: good morning.

i just wanted to comment. now that this has been brought up more because of the presidential campaign and whatnot, these super pac's represent this exist for the representatives and senators, and the shame is they are getting their money's worth. who are they electing? they are doing what they want them to do. while the people who pay the taxes get nothing for who we elect or who we try to elect. if you look at the last election cycle, a clear show that the american people wanted a certain a thing. they wanted a conservative outlook on this country, and we are getting nothing. i believe ted cruz is the only one who was sent to washington for a reason and a standing

behind this i use. everybody called him -- he is mad. he is a troublemaker. we sent himhat therefore. everybody else needs to show why you gave me this money. i'm earning it for you now. i just think it's a total shame. it's that the total shame. guest: there is this arms race of cash whether you are a democrat or republican. there is the super pac, and we talked about the exceptions to that could many candidates have multiple super pac's that are supporting, raising money for them, or will be spending money for them. at the congressional level, the point is well taken. it is a different story. you still have the opportunity if you're running for a

congressional seat or senate seat, where you can have a major strategic structural campaigning advantage if you have a couple of very wealthy supporters who theirogether, pool resources, even one supporter who will start up an organization that can come in and buy up all the airwaves in idaho or nebraska or north carolina, what ever it may be. we saw this happen in 2014 during the midterms. although the presidential election is all the rage right now, there are senate elections that will be run in 2016 where this will very much be the case. there are national super pac's on the democratic and republican support for general candidates that they feel are either vulnerable or potentially ascendant, but that's not stopping anyone from going ahead and involving themselves in starting a super pac to support this about anyone running for congressional office.

potentially the real effect or the real imbalance that you're going to see from super pac's for a candidate who has good ideas, good representative in theory, but in practice is not going to have quite the money to advantage like the other guy would have something because that other candidate is going to have a major ace and his role whole -- hole. host: dave in indiana. caller: the constitution is pretty clear. a case to save these campaign-finance laws are unconstitutional. the more political speech we have, the better. so some of these campaign-finance laws are

unconstitutional and limiting our freedom to express ourselves. thank you. , therepost-watergate were major reforms passed in the 1970's that ultimately did not take a liking to. youe is a notable case and are concerned about campaign money, there were reverberations that are in place today as a result. we've had citizens united, a case called speech now versus the federal elections commission. or setrt has reaffirmed president going forward for what people can do and what they can do when it comes to engaging in politics through the prism of money. could congress do something to change the laws?

yes, congress most certainly could do something to change the laws. the reality of the situation is that there is simply no agreement on capitol hill as to what should be done. there have been bills put forward a couple of times in to hit on that try this notion of nonprofit organization spending money and politics and not disclosing their donors. one sponsored by democrats called the disclose act, well, that went nowhere quickly because republicans were not willing to negotiate. they thought that was a bad bill. it's not long today because we couldn't get an agreement. look, congress is on a daily basis unable to come to the conclusion that the sky is blue, so had you expect them to really delve into something as technical and legalistic and also affecting them as personally as the way that you can fund and fuel campaigns. to have ats

republican, a democrat, having an advantage over you. like a football game where there is no referees, and both sides are trying to negotiate the rules of the game to make sure that one side does not have to go five yards for a first down and the other side has to go 15. that is where we are at with congress right now as it applies to campaign-finance. host: hillary clinton meeting the list with 33 million dollars, followed by bernie sanders at $27 million. republican side, ted cruz $13 million. when you think about those figures at the stage of the campaign? guest: you didn't mention one candidate, jeb bush. he has the greatest imbalance when it comes to the money that his own campaign has available, roughly $10 million to left in

the kitty right now. right tozation called rise usa has money available to it. last time we saw numbers, because they have to disclose lagging by several months, and had more than $1 million. for every dollar that jeb bush had, the super pac at one time had $10. that is real money. jeb bush's campaign -- no television ads, cutting salaries . they have announced they are scaling back, trimming back like john mccain in 2008 when his campaign was in dire straits. they really retrenched and tried to refocus their campaign. he is doing something summer to that now. they don't have a whole lot of money, but even though jeb bush's campaign has not produced any television ads at this

point, the super pac is producing television ads hither yon. it is effectively running a proxy war for jeb bush. it goes back to sort of that notion of a parallel campaign where what the candidate is doing and super pac is doing top lament each other to a significant degree, and that is jeb bush right now at the frontier of that, meeting that, but you probably going to see that with other candidates. we saw that with rick perry. was struggling to get any money coming in, the super pac have plenty of money. ultimately that did not work out too well for him. with thee levinthal center for public integrity. center for american progress nonprofit news

organization here in washington dc. we have a great politics team ,ooking at money in politics political power issues in all 50 have a big project coming out that is looking at state ethics issues in a few weeks. that should be pretty exciting. ultimately, we want to hold power accountable regardless of what political spectrum you are in, and we have been here since 1989 doing that in washington dc and will continue to do so. host: we are talking about campaign 2016 fundraising. bill from new mexico, you're up next. caller: good morning. what they fail to mention on the --er pac given to burner bernie, he turned around and gave that money to charity. thank you.

sure what the color means. super pac's can't donate directly to a candidate. it is something separate and apart from the sanders campaign. it would be even legal for a super pac to give money to a candidate, and that is the case with bernie sanders or any other candidate, and that is the way it works. host: 202-748-8001 for republicans 202-748-8000 democrats. 202-748-8002 independence. daytona beach florida. caller: i am a democrat. i do not support hillary clinton. i don't think hillary clinton did a good job with the benghazi hearing. she skipped around a lot of the questions. i know that after a candidate event, theyas an will usually broadcast. they have bragging rights.

they will say that we made a million dollars or $2 million. they will put a money figure on how much money was donated, like bernie sanders after the debates. he did very well. they made over $2 million. that was brought out. what i found strange was that after the benghazi hearing, the hillary campaign came out and said 500,000 people called. 500,000 supporters. that's not a money figure. really? how much do that 500,000 give? i think they danced around it. i think she was a disaster at that hearing. she did not answer the questions. the one thing that stood out to me is that she received 600 e-mails from that poor ambassador stevens requesting security. she never answered him. but she had constant communication with her operative

blumenthal. that says volumes for me. host: campaigns -- guest: campaigns are constantly trying to spend their numbers in a positive light if they look good, or at least on faceplate to put them into some type of --text that i always loved the time of a year before a fundraising deadline, when the books close for a quarter of the year for campaign, and right after that there is a day loses e-mails to supporters, fundraising pitches and please, a couple of days later they will come out and every campaign is effectively putting the brightest china possibly can on its numbers. what i would say is this, try to pay attention to the real numbers if you care about the

health of the campaign from a financial standpoint. those only come out at a certain time every year. some people would like to see them come out more frequently, particularly since a lot of this is transacted electronically. u.s. senate candidates, different story, file on paper, believe it or not. they filed electronically this information and it is readily available when filed. those are the numbers that really matter. right on the left and the . i feel like a broken record saying that. both sides do it. be aware of the spin that will come up with the campaigns. look at the card -- cold, hard numbers. a pharmaceutical ceo dramatically raise the price of hiv medicine, contributed to the sanders campaign, so senator sanders did what you hope a

,ritic of big pharma would do donate the money to the whitman-walker health -- uncommon whennot the money comes from an awful character, they donate that money to charity. sometimes they will give it back. often times, they will come out with a press release saying the donation, we are going to send it to xyz charity and the people who run that charity who are ofected can be beneficiaries that money, not me for political purposes. host: bob in indiana. is for theconcern senate and house race, the super pac money influences votes in

congress because they need the backing of their party to get reelected, and i think in particular of my senator -- there are some votes i think that go against his core beliefs. everyone has to run for reelection. you can have all the money in the world, and if a constituency does not like the work you have they have an opportunity at the ballot box to vote you out. that is the case and always has been. the fear that especially campaign finance reform types have is that if you have a candidate who is not necessarily doing the will of his or her constituents, is not doing the best job in office, they are able to support themselves or shore up their operation and make themselves look better than they actually are by throwing so

much money at it that somebody simply can't can beat -- can't compete. at the higher levels of government, where you might be running state-wide -- a little bit of a different case if you're running for mayor or town government. there are examples were candidates who have a heck of a lot of money are able to put themselves and office. are examples where a candidate had a lot of money and it did not work out for them because they did not have the requisite support from voters. that is just the way it is. host: what is important to look out for in the next couple of year, going into next 2016? guest: keep an eye on the super pac's.

we have an eye on where the fundraising is coming in. we do see almost instantaneously where the money is going out. when it comes to expenditures that directly benefit rand paul or marco rubio hillary clinton or whoever else, that money, we can see. if a super pac, for example, says they are going to do anything they can to support rand paul or john kasich or any other candidates in iowa or new hampshire, that is going to speak very much to the overall strategy of people supporting those candidates to get elected and speak to the strategy of where they are putting their resources that they would play an early state game. until thel hold back primary the beginning of march. you have got the big one in the middle of march.

the florida primary. , throughe very curious the window of money, to see how the strategies are shaping up .or the candidates only one can win. we have 15 left on the republican side even with the few that have dropped out. with a few more dropouts between in and when things heat up, february, we're still going to have a number of candidates who go into the primary were going to be there, competing, and it is going to be a bigger number than we have been seeing on the republican side in many, many elections. you can find the reporting , weatherby on puttin -- whether it be on fundraising or anything else. thank you. president obama used his veto to

send a defense bill back for reworking. rencell learn more from law korb and thomas donnelly. fazio willn peter de talk about the highway bill and its deadline on thursday. in his interview with reporters, he talks about the chances for democrats gaining a majority in congress and whether congress will get anything done this year. >> he's been in congress for 30 years now. you have been in and out of the since 1995. i wonder about your level of frustration now as compared to the past. is it at a high? >> this is the most dysfunctional congress that i've ever seen. some historians say congress was about this dysfunctional in the

lead up to the civil war. there is no other. in history -- there is no other history where congress was this dysfunctional. our system is built on compromise. we don't have the tools of a parliamentary system where we call an early election to clean this up. we are stuck. very dangerous time for the republic. intermittent reinforcement. it is very addictive. together good policy for the bill. i will continue to fight for good funding so we can expedite and implement policy. that is an accomplishment. i have started working with my shoes on.

we capture the taxes we can collect for harbor maintenance. shocking in washington dc, we will take the taxes and spend them on harbor maintenance. wow. a breakthrough. we have to phase it in. it is too much of a shock to the system around here. stuff done,ng some at least in my corner of the world in transportation. a lot of the rest is in the wasteland. q&a, amy night on osick shares her expenses from the hillary clinton campaign. i was younger. i was the traveling person. i was not in a senior role. when you travel all the time, you get to know the people to travel with her. i feel like i got to know her pretty well. she would come back in the plane and talk to us.

sourcest have the same that the campaign of high-level people have now. whether that's a function of the timer being in a more senior role. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. washington journal continues. host: for the next hour, we take a look at a veto by the president on the national defense authorization act, which deals with military funding issues. in the oval office, he gave some reasons. obama: i have called on congress to eliminate the sequester and make sure that we are providing certainty to our make sure our can troops get what they need. this bill resorts to gimmicks that do not allow the pentagon to do what it needs to do.

aboutjoining us to talk this decision to veto the bill and some aspects of it, to two guests. , and also tom donnelly. gentlemen, good morning. let's start with you, mr. donnelly. what is the bill about? why did the president to veto it? defense policya bill separate from appropriations. you authorize the amount of spending and a bunch of other policy recommendations. the moneyhave appropriated for the department. because of a larger contest over federal spending, the president has chosen to veto this. this does not happen often. when it does, it is usually over

a matter of policy, not over money. host: so there's a specific reason he decided to do this? guest: there is. .e have budget caps, sequester the president said, let's get rid of them. for all federal agencies, including defense. congress wants to have it both ways. they should know it will still keep to the budget control number. we are going to put the extra money into the war fund, the overseas contingency operations budget. this way, they can increase defense. the president said, no, you have to do not just this but the other. cannot spend it economically in the war fund, because it does not permit you to spend it on things that you have in the original budget. host: is it a good idea to veto this? guest: it was a great idea. usee are going to sequester, we should do it for all. there are a lot of agencies that

contribute to national security, like homeland security, or the state department. mr. donnelly, was vetoing a good idea? you expect congress to be able to differentiate between different kinds of federal spending. in the view of congress, they thought improving and expanding the capacity of the military, especially in a dangerous environment, was a better bet than raising headstart or other domestic discretionary spending. it was a reasonable proposition on the part of the congress. they raised defense spending to what the president expected. have to agree with larry that this is not an ideal solution.

nonetheless, given the crisis we step that is first necessary. host: crisis because of funding? guest: because of cuts and downsizing. and the fact that the world is a more dangerous place. this is the first step to getting out of the constraints imposed by the budget control act. it is not the perfect solution. thanimprovement is better perfection. do a great up a world becomes more than a dangerous place? guest: i think we're spending enough. we're spending more than we did in the cold war, adjusted for inflation. of thehn mccain, author bill, says he is upset about how ged the weapons system program is.

we are $450 billion over the estimated cost. we're spending more and more and getting less and less. senator mccain is upset about the price of the aircraft carrier, the new f-35 joint strike fighter. this week, he said he will have to buy less, because it costs more than we thought. host: are they the most extensive driver of budgets? guest: no. the largest slice of the budget is personnel costs. thepos of senator mccain, bill also includes a huge package of reforms, as i said. it's a defense policy bill. the other important thing it does is authorized pay increases -- authorize pay increases for the troops. both of these policy things are victims of this fight over what i would call a "misdirected"

fight. to take the defense authorization bill, the policy bill hostage, is pretty hard-edged politics. in andf you want to call ask what this means, 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats, and 202-748-8002 for independence. active military can call 202-748-8003. senator mccain talked about this of what he thought this bill was not the best move. let's listen. mccain: it seems to me if

the president vetoes this that he is placing a higher priority over his concern and opposition to the funding budgetary over the then he is defense of the country. -- if he cared about the defense of the nation, he would focus on the active appropriations bills. veto the appropriations bills because you don't like where the money is coming from. is that a reasonable argument? guest: no. there is a provision in there that will stop present obama from freeing anymore prisoners from guantanamo bay even though 55 have been cleared for release. there are some good provisions in the bill. they want to reform the military retirement system. there are other things in there. pentagon toing the

build an east coast missile site. there are a lot of provisions in there that i think the president was sworn to veto. were really concerned about the defense department, we would not be under a continuing resolution. federal not pass the budget on time. that is the real problem right up. until december, we are going on a continuing resolution. even though it is fiscal 2016, that will waste a lot of taxpayer money. first of all, the guantanamo provisions have been in the bill every year since 2010 these are not new provisions. these are not a cause for a presidential veto. they were enacted into law in the last four or five years. that is a little bit of a canard. reason we have not passed appropriations bills is because the democratic minority in the

senate has blocked the passes. they have been passed in the house. this whole game is a really being directed from the white house with the intent to force increases in domestic spending. i think senator mccain has it exactly right. the appropriate place to have this argument is over the actual spending bills, the appropriations bills. to qualitatively cross the line and gum up the policy works with a fight about money is unprecedented. host: we will continue this conversation. john from utah. your of first on the democrat line. go ahead with your comment or question. caller: i just want to know if this policy bill that the vetoednt the don't --

dealt with the waste in private contractors with costs plus financing for them and open-ended checks. does a deal with them being able to charge us $100 for a bag of laundry, for trucks. does it deal with the waste? that is a great deal of waste in our budget. paying the troops more, ,ut the waste programs overseeing with that money is going, is there anything to go with that? are we on the same george bush open-ended ticket for these were profiting private contractors? guest: going back to the bill, there is a provision in there that says you can't close basis. we are 20% over capacity. costing millions every

year to keep these bases over capacity. f-35'snt to buy more even though it hasn't been tested fo. i think the real problem is that is justnse department not doing their job. people can take a look at what they said the effort if i was f-35 to cost -- what the is going to cost. way over budget. john says that is why we got sequestered. they are light, overpriced, and they don't even deliver them. guest: the irony is that this

bill has comprehensive procurement in it. a new retirement fund for people who served fewer than 20 years. this bill is full of process and procurement reforms. for the present to veto it sends a really bad signal to congress in trying is no point to get their way. withbill has nothing to do the dollars and cents that the government will spend. away this reform effort in a generation and hold that hostage in a dispute about domestic spending seems to me to be really misplaced. good morning.

i retired military. -- i am retired military. , was concerned with this veto how it will affect the president , as far as the health care. for the retired military and also for retirement pension that we are now getting, is that going to be grandfathered in, or is that going to change for those people that already receive retirement benefits? guest: the bill does contain reforms to both retiree and current active duty were in medical programs. that is what the cost drivers. the provisions do grandfather in people who basically are already

-- it doesn't change the deal for people who have already done their service and retired. it does help to put the system in for those currently serving to retire on a more sound financial basis. that is another example of reforms that are being blocked and held up by the president's veto. guest: they can go where they can take out the provisions. this is the first year they put in a date and said the end of obamas and ministration, you cannot do that with guantanamo. there are certain things that you need to put in the bill. this gentleman may not be happy because of the increase in pharmacy co-pays and things like that. there are good things in it. back and look at what other presidents vetoed, bush, reagan, carter, a couple of

specific things, they went back and took them out. one provision was that you have to get out of iraq or you can send more troops. bush vetoed that, so they took it out and passed it again. when the president says he objects to those provisions-- going back to tom's point, if it theed this, and appropriators do it, and the money has to stay in a war fund budget, that does not help the pentagon do any long term planning. that's going to waste a lot of money. guest: larry makes my point. past vetoes were over defense policy issues. you can meet the president's demands for the gitmo provision. bill,ld still veto the because he cares about raising domestic spending. he is using this as a stick to hit republicans in congress with.

of course, it is the case that normally allocating spending is the most sensible way to do it. doing it through the backdoor is better than not doing it at all. the military desperately needs the money. his levels of readiness have dropped. that is the money that you can allocate funding for. the military could make really good use of this money. met the has simply defense requested that the president, in terms of dollars, put forward earlier in the year. guest: the war funding that is currently paying for iraq and afghanistan, is that where it comes from? guest: it is what we used to call supplemental appropriation. the title to "overseas contingencies operation." is mostly to cover the bullets and beef cost of deploying

personnel, particularly to iraq and afghanistan. over the years, it has become a fluid mechanism for helping to repair systems that get crashed or war maorn out. the defense department has better at allocating a less wasteful way than you might imagine. host: is this the administration trying to line item? ,uest: if a before we had this i will put senator mccain, why is this in defense? why is this in the war fighting budget? this is supposed to fund the operation there, but they have put in new combat aircraft in re and we are not even flying them. this is a gimmick that the pentagon has used it to get

around budget caps. the pentagon asked for $36 billion more in the base budget. no way, even with stretching everything, can you justify more than $30 billion in there. this has nothing to do with the fact that we are involved in the war. this is a way to get around the budget. everybody knows people are doing this. guest: you have made my point again. this is a way to get around the constraints in the budget control act, which nobody likes. the president submitted a budget which blew through the caps. for him to be shocked to that there's gambling going on in the pentagon, you know, he is sort of like a casablanca cop. host: john in china, texas. caller: the hypocrisy of the liberal media and obama is sublimating.

the republicans, when they wanted to take up planned parenthood funding, obama vetoed it. republicans were accused of shutting down the government and being radicals and not caring for the country and women. here we have a president who is acting like a mini-me shutting down the defense budget because he does not get his way. they're trying to make him out to be a hero. that is insane. obama is acting like a dictator. congressman, my senator cornyn. when are they going to say enough is enough? congress has a role, you have your role, we do stand up to obama and say no, we will vote for this, you accept it or else? you shut this down, we are sick and tired of obama playing like a third world dictator. y.at is what i have to sa guest: i think it is important

to say that the sequester is a republican idea. when the freedom caucus took over in 2010, they said unless you do this we will shut the government down. this is not the president's idea. if you want to talk about how we got into this mess, in iraq and afghanistan, the bush and ministration not only did not raise taxes to pay for it like nixon did in vietnam, they cut taxes. we have a deficit people are congress about, and came up with this provision. , he ando you, paul ryan patty murray got relief from the budget control act. to tell you how foolish things are and go back, they had a provision in there for military 62 that until you were you would get cost of living

minus 1 and when you're 62 they would make it up for you. everybody said, oh, this is terrible. so congress would not pass it. there was money on the table because of used. they wanted to free it up for other things. i'm glad that finally, congress has done something about the cost of military personnel, but the fact of the matter is that -- they would not raise the tricare fees. billion before the government would do anything about it. guest: to go back to the original point, this is a plague on both houses. act is thecontrol only piece of bipartisan agreement between the white house and the new conservatives

and the leadership of congress. they agreed that they would not touch entitlement programs. they agreed that it was ok to camehe government when it to national defense. you have this left-wing, right wing dark side of the moon alliance that created the budget control act. party is chaste and virginal. apropos of this year's bill, this has been a slow-moving what wreck that outlines is going to happen in congress very early in the year. to this point, neither side has budged. says there are other things that matter to the president then defense spending. he could also be speaking about his own colleagues in the republican caucus host:.

joining us for a discussion on the defense budget issue. tom donnelly we just heard from his from the american enterprise institute. larry corbett is from the center for american progress. let your tony in fort worth, texas. democrat line. morning.ood you look sharp as usual, pedro. my comment is that every time i hear sequester, it makes me angry. self-inflicted. you cannot have it both ways. if you want to cut all federal funding--you cannot go around and try to sequester by china fund the things you want to fund. is trying toaller make this an obama thing. this is not an obama thing. this is a thing where we cannot come together on anything.

maybe vetoing the bill was the right thing to do? you cannot pick and choose what you want to fund. the sequester something the government did to us. we now suffer from what they have done. that's my comment. host: to that point, mr. donnelly, what is the stands bef the sequester? we need tocuts -- make sure we are speaking accurately when we talk about the sequester and the budget control act. ped budget control act cap discretionary spending. and there is also sort of a rule thatn -- rule of thumb those cuts should be equally allocated. course the most -- the much larger entitlement, social security, medicare, servicing the federal debt. if we are talking about the

whichment making choices is, in my judgment, what we pay these guys to do -- otherwise they would just give away goodies to everybody all the time -- the budget control act is a mechanism for basically the congress and the president to say that is automatic, nothing to do with me. provisionput in this that if federal spending it wouldthe caps that be automatically cut. again, it is sort of a way for to avoidns to appear responsibility as if there were some sort of death star automatic mechanism out there that control spending and that they did not have to actually vote on. and so the condition of our military. guest: i think the military has

more than enough money. as i said, in real terms, accounting for inflation, the budget this year -- -- passed by the congress -- is more than we spent on average in the cold war. is it as high as it was in the wars in iraq? no. and take ago back look at after vietnam, after korea and the end of the cold war, the budget was much less. we are talking about 40%, 50%. so no. it is a problem of minute -- management. we have seen this coming for years, nobody wanted to do anything about it. now we are going to have to deal with it. you have this cost overrun and weapon systems. .ake the f 35 for example they moved that into production before they finished. the best that the secretary who manages the place -- manage the place in the nixon the decision said, fly before you buy.

they rush in and then nobody is held accountable for something like that. host: two things -- two things, quickly. to reduce the size of a mobilized forces a completely everything to reduce the size of a conscript force. korea, even had not are not good analogies to the situation that the military faces today. program secondly, a like the joint strike fighter, for example, was always intended -- it was created in the clinton administration because there was supposed to be an urgent need to build this plan well finishing installment. it was always intended to proceed along the path that it has done, but because of uncertain funding along the way this process has been drawn out.

amountys costs a certain to engineer and build the first plane, first worship, first tank. you pay a big cost upfront. the only thing that makes it worthwhile is to buy them at efficient procurement rates. and then because of budget cuts -- not simply the sequestration or the budget control act -- because of things continue as for the last generation, all these programs have been basically been half russians for rations foralf decades. host: so even as of today "the washington post" highlights issues. the f 35, there are issues with the helmet involved. guest: i think this is just a silly story. whichs kind of tweaking has happened with every weapon system ever invented.

the difference is that the torque oneat has more a small body. so instead of being able to have a pilot who weighed 115 pounds you would then be located -- running a one in 15,000 and -- risk of the injury when injected, they raised the weight 21 hundred 35,000 there talking about making some slight adjustments. this is not a procurement story. this is a normal business kind of stuff. korb way in.et mr. guest: wait a minute. the stuff was bubbling in the 21st century. guest: it started in the clinton administration. guest: i know it started under

the clintons. the base budget was going on. there was no reason for them to do that. and we have had successful programs back when you had people like david packard, f-16 wentlson, the through the budget because it was fly before you buy. that was during the height of the cold war. guest: the f-16 was a simple plane. today carries every plan and subsystem known to man. comparing it now to what it was first invented is a day and by comparison. guest: i'm just saying, it came out under -- on time and under budget. this was not ready to buy when they moved it into production, even before all of these things came out. ok? and if you don't believe me, listen to john mccain. hear what he said about the f 35 in terms of how it is done.

and going back to this, yes, these were constant forces. but the cold war was a volunteer military when that happened, and during the wars in it iraq and afghanistan we added 100,000 people to the force. ofthose wars, in terms personnel on the ground, not nearly as much. you should be able to reduce them. that is normally what you do. just very quickly. the cold war is a perfect since the end of the cold war is a perfect example of bad defense planning. it did not occur to us that we would ever get into a large-scale, extended land conflicts. planner, to have the capacity to do it is the kind of question that defense planning is supposed to deal with. offernot supposed to perfect wisdom, it is supposed

to produce visibility. we are repeating the same things again. guest: 40% of the world military it is not a-- question of money. it is a question of management. host: let me get in a call from ray in tennessee for our guest. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i have some comments. i was in the military 50 years ago. back then when we went out trading we would go up bridges and stuff like that -- low up bridges and stuff like that. they called in civilians to build those back. that was combat engineers civilians right there. that is one side of the waste of government spending. is, get rid of [indiscernible]

they are deep in the pocket of the government. they are not inspector general. i don't know where they come any but they are not making directness. back then the mps started this. they run it on the base day-to-day. civilians are doing the job, getting things. complaint them big-time? yesterday, ms. heller glendon, the government people come out and back her. government. guest: it's interesting. that is what i was on active duty, 50 years ago two. so younot pay very much could use military people for a lot of other jobs. when i worked for president reagan we were basically doing what he did not like, because

basically we use the military , note to fight wars checking your passes when you come into the game. what i used to tell people is i would say look, if you have a job that needs to be done, look to the private sector first. in the long term that is less expensive. if it has to be done in government let's look first to the civilians, then to the nd active duty because they are our most precious and expensive. ig's are a ideas -- good thing because they protect people who are whistleblowers. if they see something going on they can do that. one of the other provisions in the bill i don't like his, they they want to downgrade the office of test and evaluation which is supposed to make sure that these weapons are ready to go. host: mr. donnelly? guest: actually i agree largely. office buthe test

about the use of contractors. he is quite right. i have taken to visit to some army posts and what you find now is a return -- again because of the budget turmoil -- if you go now you are more likely to the soldiers flipping burgers and istract workers, which , andy a waste of resources so replaced -- a waste of the most valuable resources they have which is their time. they should be blowing up bridges. host: peter is in pennsylvania, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you for your opposing viewpoints. the president made a statement

about being more domestic. donald trump talks about being more domestic. what are we looking at what we are facing joint operations between russia and china as far ,s their defense budget goes with with -- with it being just under hours. money is really the wrong way to judge this. we pay our soldiers a decent .age people in service. our technology is the best in the world and therefore expensive. it would be good to buy things that are efficient, which really means making sure that you recoup the investment. war is most important -- not a budgetary matter. it is something that happens on the battlefield.

the important measure of our military power is our armed forces and the capability of our force. again, that is one of the places our edge is. our force has always been a relatively small force especially given that has to operate everywhere in the world. to keep thingsry together rather than try to take them apart like the russians are trying to do. oranges an apples and comparison. the thing that we do need to keep our focus on is what is happening in the world and do we have a force that is large enough and capable enough to do the things that we ask it to do? guest: i think it is interesting. way back when i was at the american enterprise institute we would justify our defense budget unionupon what the soviet did. look, they are spending more we have to spend more. i think you have to decide what you want to do but you also have to take a look at what other people are doing. everybody talks about the chinese.

i mentioned 40% of the worlds military expenditure is in the u.s.. ,f you do purchase power purchasing power parity when you control for those things we are number one. china is number two. who isnumber 30 -- number three? not russia. saudi arabia, which by the way is our ally. you never have enough money to buy perfect defense. you can look at ever since we eisenhower, complaining about the military, not being satisfied with whatever he gave them. so i think you have to make choices. i think given where we are, where the world is, and historically $610 billion is a pretty darn good figure. you start controlling for inflation before the war started in iraq and afghanistan we are doing pretty good host:.

i want to get your thoughts on an event that took place in iraq that led to the death of an american soldier. wroteall street journal" about it, saying it was the day after that the defense secretary spoke about it. i want to give you a little bit of his statement. and react to what is going on in iraq. [video clip] capability is a great american strength. it does not represent a city -- sunni come back, it represents our role. to doe find opportunities things that will effectively prosecute the campaign we are going to do that. this is an example of a case where we can do something we alone has the capability to do, and i have absolutely prepared to do that. this is one of those categories

-- and i suspect that we will have further opportunities in the future to avail ourselves of. let's start with you. what do you think of the defense secretary's statements? real question is, do you want to keep doing this or do you want to fall back? you want to do this on an exceptional basis? i think that is the real issue. what it says is if you put men and women out there on the battlefield and war starts, you can't say oh, no, you have to step up very few are devising. if it was not for them this mission would have failed. all think about that brief master sergeant who was one of the first want to charge in there when the kurdish forces could not go in. guest: look, the secretary is correct. this is something that only we can do very well and it is in our interests to do so.

the problem is with the strategy. it has not fundamentally changed. when like using a dagger the other people are using poloo mallets -- hello -- mallets. it is just not going to make much of a difference. of course we should do it when we see terrorists are high-ranking that guys that cannot be gotten any other way, but we delude ourselves if we think that it is fundamentally going to change the course of the war. host: we have the president just issuing an announcement about the troop situation in afghanistan, we have situation in syria, and then we go to the larger issue of support. talk a little bit about those things actually going on. and have to support going on within the defense department to support all those things, especially when it comes to the money and the equipment? guest: the money is not a problem.

remember, the president asked for $51 billion for contingency operations -- again, at the height of the war in afghanistan and iraq it was about $100 billion or it he has got enough money. the real question is your strategy. do you want to go in there and put troops in iraq chacko the iraqis don't want us back. the afghans have asked us to stay, and i think if they ask the agreementgn you should do that. i agree with the president. the last thing we want to do is get involved in the syrian civil war. that is so complex. down, whoseho is side are you on? i think we can get a negotiated solution there. i like the checkers proposal. leave aside there for six months and then move on. the real enemy is isil. guest: saddam hussein did not want us to intervene in iraq.

you have to give the president credit for following a consistent strategy. his strategy has been to do the minimum about possible to withdraw from the commitments .he bush administration made it was sort of a closely run thing as to whether he would positively respond to the afghan request to keep a larger u.s. re.ce the even acknowledging that he said he would probably drive down by the end of his term. president has tried to back away as much as he can. again it has been a very consistent policy, and he does not want to repeat, in afghanistan, the experience of what happened with our withdrawal from iraq. the question is whether you think that is a strategy that is going to be effective. guest: the iraqis wanted us out.

they are the ones who set a date to get out. i asked, could obama do anything, and he said no. we signed an agreement. he gave a speech six months after he signed that saying that we were compelled. this idea that you could have afghanistan is different. you have a status of forces agreement to protect our men and women there. guest: assad is -- hussein was displaying himself as a dictator. guest: we put him in. rick int's go to maryland. hi. caller: good morning. first of all i would like to say and i alsorea retired. a lot of things your essay are not true. first of all let's just get this straight.

is superior.ates our air force is probably the greatest in the history of the air force. you need to let everybody know that there is a federal ban on the f-22 and after the five -- and f 35.35 -- guarantees their superiority all over the world. we can probably going to russia and control airspace. it is important that we continue to work on these programs. thank you. korb?mr. guest: i agree. been so was it has

poorly managed we are not going to be a little biased many as we have liked. it isnot just industry, people running defense contract. as i look at the pentagon and having been there, unless you have a small -- 80 deputy secretary of defense it does not work. dick cheney, whatever else you think about him, he was a heck of a secretary of defense, because the white house takes a good deputy. and that goes back to people like david packard. these are industry giants. we need jobs in there to run the thing. we do sell these things all over the world. a lot ofs i mentioned this has been selling advanced fighters to the saudi's. our military sales last year were $44 billion around the world. guest: just to focus on the f 35, we have developed it in conjunction with a whole host of other partners. in fact the seat of the

conservative party in canada is to lead to canada leading the program, thus bumping back cost us -- bumping the cost of not just for the united states but the other countries that have been part of the development group. this is a plain not just for the u.s. but really for the free world air force. why themore reason advancedto fund and this program are crippling, not only to us but the people who are our closest allies. from massachusetts, bill is next. hi. caller: thank you for taking my call. i watch this every day and i know that jeff sessions is a

budget control hack. he is always violating if anyone is violating the budget control act or it unfortunately he was silent on the contingency report. it seems like he is pretty hypocritical in what he objects to and what he likes that is going on. i want to just bring up that point. thank you for taking my call. he is a hard-core budget hawk. secretary of the senate in that way. this is what the budget control act has been the members of congress to do, because they know that it is sort of a death sentence on the military. and so again, i think that is kind of a measure of the extreme situation that we have faced. if jeff sessions is willing to

circumvent the capital budget control act it tells you more about the budget control act than it does about senator sessions. guest: sequestration has only happened once. fiscal year 2011. so this idea that all my goodness, sequester. as i say, over $600 billion is pretty good, given the fact that before the beginning of the times we wereal about 400. the question is how will you spend the money? host: from florida, well, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking the call. my concern is that the defense department has not been audited for over 10 years. the only department in the government that has not submitted to an audit, which is required -- it is required to by

law. i would like your guest to comment as to why that is, especially since they spend such a huge amount of our money. i was watching former secretary hees yesterday on c-span and very disingenuous -- disingenuously said that the defense department represents only 15% of the federal budget. well, over half of the federal budget is what you might call insurance programs. social security and medicare. and then you have interest on the national debt. compared to all the other departments of government, the military budget is about 60% of what we call discretionary spending. i am so tired of hearing how poor the defense department is when they are really the guerrilla in -- guerrilla --

gorilla in the room and any attempt to cut it down residue huge lobbying interest that will ensure the defeat of people who and thet against it fact that it has not been audited for all these years. it even says it cannot be audited. to me that is disgusting. host: is that right? guest: he is right. agenciessaid, federal don't have to be. the pentagon has ever done it. i think he has a very good life good point.y host: what is their rationale? guest: we can't do it, it's too hard. every time the general accountability office goes in

there they find all kinds of things that are not taken care of. that is why you need the ig because they are not audited so you need the ig for people to be able to speak up with nothing happens. guest: this issue makes me a little angry. the military is audited every day. it is called war. war on its our military. it is been very few times in my lifetime that the military has been audited. that is the kind of audit that thanker federal agency, god, is subjected to. ask yourself as a taxpayer, and i getting a decent value for when i spend on military power? i think the answer is obviously and overwhelmingly yes. concerning -- considering the small amount of our wealth and we allocate to military power, we get a world-class force in

return. guest: let's just get the facts out. guest:the federal government puts about 60% of the money into entitlement programs -- so-called entitlement programs federalcing the government. -- the federal debt. the rest is split between domestic spending. shenanigan, the gorilla is not really in the room. the gorilla is this mandatory spending. when you talk about a slice of the federal budget, military spending is about 16%. ita slice of national wealth is about 3.5%, including war funding. the dollar amounts are big but

we are a very wealthy country, even though we are going through hard times now. as a slice of our overall economy, this is a very small slice. and as a value proposition i think it is a huge part. host: we have been talking about defense spending with our two guests. last question. thisthere be resolved issue another the veto has been put into place? guest: i believe there will. the provisions that are in the bill, particularly including the troop pay levels, are something the government has to do. what the resolution will be -- talk to mitch mcconnell and the president and paul ryan. paul ryan entering the list i think bodes well for the solution. he helped engineer the ryan murray solution.

the problem this year has been that that deal has been breached. that a speaker perspective -- from my lips to god's ears. [laughter] mr. korb, is there going to be resolved this? guest: i think particularly if senator ryan -- congressman ryan becomes speaker. he will come in and at least have a honeymoon. at least for the end of this year. that is what the debate is about. the president is the president. this is his policy, if you don't like it then you are going to have to deal with it. that is why we have elections. he was very clear about this in 2012. with therence korb

center for american progress, formerly of the defense department of the reagan administration. thomas donnelly of the american enterprise institute, also was policy director at the armed services committee in the 90's. thank you for joining us. democrats gather in iowa to talk about campaign 2016, also to fund raise. we are going to talk about that. for our next hour, democrats only. here is the question. to win the white house, democrats need to...? you get to fill in the blank. if you support hillary clinton, (202) 748-8000. if you support bernie sanders, (202) 748-8001. if you support other candidates, (202) 748-8002. washington journal continues after this.

persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are order to draw near and give their attention. >> we have not seen a court overturned a law that was passed by congress on an economic issue like health care, at least since lochner. >> the case in lochner was majority ruled that a state legislator can now take away your life and liberty and the court said no. i think it is a wonderful decision. >> this week we look at lochner v new york. in 1895 the new york legislature passed the bakeshop act, restricting the hours of bakery employees to 10 hours a day. thatkery owner violated law and was fined $50. refusing to pay, he took his case all the way to the screen. find out what locker is known as

one of the most controversial decisions in supreme court history as we were this case with our guests. randy barnett, professor at georgetown university law kens, political science professor at texas state university. cases, live monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. >> i stay in the wings and don't come out too often, so this is quite unusual for me. what i do want to thank all of you for your friendship and your and for planning this wonderful evening for me. i shall remember it always. and thank you for this great welcome. >> pat nixon was the first

republicans -- republican first lady to address the national convention. he traveled more widely than any , madelady before her volunteerism her issue, and behind-the-scenes she was nixon's political advisor. at nixon, this sunday night 8:00 p.m. eastern. sunday and it got p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: again, for the remainder of our time, democrats only. answer this question for us. to win the white house, democrats need to -- and then

you can fill in the rest. for those who support hillary clinton, (202) 748-8000. for those who support bernie sanders, (202) 748-8001. and for the rest of the candidates, (202) 748-8002. you can post on twitter as well. the white house democrats need to appeal to envy and greed. here and says, to win the white house, democrats need to get out and vote. select the line that best represents you. thes in iowa today that jefferson jackson dinner takes place. it is a major event for democrats wanting -- running for the white house. joining us to talk about it is jason noble of "the des moines register." talkingtart out by about the history of this dinner at what it colleges? guest: sure. this is a long running fundraiser for the democratic party. iowaconnection to the

caucuses goes back to the very start of the iowa caucuses. in 1975 the jefferson jackson dinner featured seven presidential candidates including jimmy carter. there was a straw poll taken at that event that was widely reported and is really kind of the first time that the national media took notice of jimmy carter's campaign. this is a tradition going back as far as the caucuses. host: as far as the event itself, what should we expect as we watch tonight? thet: at this point jefferson jackson dinner is really a spectacle. it is an opportunity for the candidates to show off the enthusiasm that they have built up around their campaigns here, the organization and skill in attracting people and getting people out and active in the campaign. i came into the office here in downtown des moines about 45 minutes ago, well before 8:00 a.m. here. hillary clinton already had literally dozens of people out ,n the street waving signs

trying to get the attention of passing cars. hours from the doors opening. some of the rice up this morning saying that parades take place. like you mentioned, people in the streets. can you paint the picture for us? guest: sure. hillary clinton -- her campaign will have a rally here with katy perry, the pop star. bill clinton will be at that rally. i know bernie sanders is running a similar event rate we will have a march through downtown des moines. eight years ago the jefferson jackson dinner was really seen as barack obama's breakout moment. he had a concert with john legend and lead this parade from his campaign headquarters into downtown des moines. it is really just a spectacle. host: so as far as tonight's event, with joe and announcing ,hat he is not going to run

with other democratic candidates pulling out of the campaign, what are you watching for tonight as far as what goes on between hillary clinton and bernie sanders? guest: you can tell already that hillary clinton is really trying to have an overwhelming show of , i am thereally say candidate who is best organize. i am the candidate with the most enthusiastic supporters. that is obviously to try to blunt the momentum for the hanging around that we have seen from bernie sanders. i anticipate that bernie sanders will also bring big crowds and a lot of enthusiasm. an interesting question will be, could this be the night that martin o'malley breakthrough? people who have been watching this race have been saying, why haven't we seen a moment from martin o'malley yet? this would be an opportunity to do it if he can pull it off very -- if he can pull it off. jason noble -- speaking aboutle

tonight's jefferson jackson dinner. thank you for your time. for the last 20 minutes or so dinnerlight of the tonight, democrats only. the numbers are on the screen. what do they need to do to win the white house? the numbers are there. let's start with joe. joe is in massachusetts. he supports other democratic candidates. go ahead. caller: yes. first i would like to say why i don't support hillary and sanders. becausesupport hillary her husband deregulated the banks causing millions of people to lose everything. i would never vote for her. bernie sanders, i watched that debate. he treated clinton so good. he should have been talking about the corruption going on in washington. and so the question that

we are posing, what do democrats need to do? i like this man holland. he talks about how they put the loopholes for our company to go overseas. get rid of the loopholes. host: ok, a bernie sanders supporter from portland oregon. hi. caller: hi. but i think democrats need to do -- not necessarily to win the white house, but the reason that i am voting is because i would the fundraising for campaigns. i would like to see that made it strictly public. i think that people should be responsible for buying all of these politicians their airtime. i think also we need to change that when a politician comes into office there should be

certain restrictions on them, barring them from lobbying and from certain investments that they might have privileged information to that the general public does not have. i think that bernie sanders has the right idea when he says -- and i really do believe that this government has undergone a ,oup in the sense that money big money, has taken over the government from locals all the way up to federal. the only thing that we can do be quietly socialist. we have to -- -- the people have to rise up and let these politicians know that certain things, we are not going to take them anymore. we need to drop these issues that drive us apart. when we run into politicians want to drive us apart we have

to have more political savvy than to do that. we need conversations that bring us together. host: ok, that is dolores. david in mississippi, a supporter of hillary clinton. to win the white house with the democrats need to do? do is: all hillary has to to have bernie as her running mate and they will march right into the white house. it as simple as that? caller: after her performance the other night it is clear that she is presidential. host: do you think they are compatible as far as their issues are concerned? caller: yes. they both agree on about all politics. they are both powerful. they will and never -- never elect a socialist a president. times"the new york

discussing the campaign of lincoln chafee, saying it had struggled to make headway and that he had trouble raising money. when he announced plans to run over the summer's platform was overshadowed by a call for a switch to the metric system. debate he was unable to control the stage and make a candidacy.s an antiwar candidate who is interested in foreign affairs he tried to criticize hillary clinton for her vote as a senator to authorize the vote in iraq. hear yourwant to thoughts on what it takes to win the white house. tell us what needs to be done by the democrats to do that. (202) 748-8000 for hillary clinton supporters. (202) 748-8001 for bernie sanders supporters. and if you support other democratic candidates, (202) 748-8002. wendy is next from ohio, supporter of bernie sanders. caller: good morning. my comment is that no one during

the debate or send has brought up the investigation into clinton, then when she was senator everything she was against, like free trade against these other countries, when she got in the state department she flip-flopped and did everything that she was against. 2001, she was in an interview and she said when bill clinton left the white house that they were broke, dead broke . and then in years since they have brought in $136 million. he used to get paid like $750,000. once she got in the state department he was getting like $.5 million for a speech. when they went to haiti after the earthquake in 2010 she

arrived four days later, two days later. he was on the special release contract, and he got all his friend to get the million dollar those yearsnd in they didn't have any money down there. host: but as far as democrats are concerned, what do you think they need to do in order to win the white house in 2016? i think bernie sanders, people need to look up his information. she is just a liar, and between the two of them they are just corrupt. host: let's hear from edinburgh, ma, good morning. caller: good morning. on howwanted to comment democrats have gone after the vote, buthispanic

right now i have not seen any campaigns. my thing is they need to be more actively engaged in some .wareness there are no ads now going on or even review ads. mobilized and try to seek the hispanic vote and be more active about it, then they will get the democratic voters to vote for them. you have identified yourself as a bernie sanders reporter. have you seen anything specifically from his campaign to latino voters? caller: it has mainly been the internet but nothing on tv or radio. they need to do that because we do listen. i have a business and i run some radio ads. people call in. they do listen. there is nothing going on down

here for democrats. isust imagine that that it going on across the country. actively seek that vote rather than just internet. radioof people listen to and they watch tv and there is nothing going on right now. bernie sanders was one of the speakers at the democratic national committee forum that took place in washington dc, talked about some of the issues that he is looking forward to campaigning on when it comes to campaign 2016. here is a little bit from yesterday. [video clip] sanders: millionaires and billionaires are pouring unlimited sums of money into the political process through super pac's and independent expenditures. in the last election, last november, 63% of the american did not vote.

83% of young people did not vote. millionaires and billionaires .re buying the election is that what democracy in this country is supposed to be about? i think not. [applause] sanders: the truth is, as all of you know, republicans win win voter turnout is low, when millions of people turn their backs on the political process, when they look to washington and they say what are you doing for me? when they don't have any health insurance, what you doing for me? when they say i can't afford to send my baby and for decent quality child care, what are you doing for me? to send my older

kids to college, what are you doing for me? and when people give up on the political process and don't vote in large numbers, when republican governors suppress the vote, when the koch brothers or other billionaires trying to buy elections, republicans win. so what do we do? what we do is make it clear that in this country we need a political revolution. [applause] hear from bernie sanders, you'll hear from hillary clinton, you'll hear from martin o'malley tonight. if you are interested in watching that watch it on c-span at 9:00 this evening. listen for it on c-span radio. find out more about it and c-span.org. it is part of our road to the white house 2016 coverage. if you want to see more from you just a bernie

sanders, hillary clinton speaking there as well, you can go to our website. here is joan, a hillary clinton supporter. hider. caller: hi. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i am from georgia. i am definitely a hillary clinton supporter. i supported her in the last myction eight years ago and advice to the democrats at this point in time is hang tough. don't give in to the republicans. hang tough. no, i am not going to deal with this. the affordable health care act and stuff like this. the war in iraq. he has done all of that. that is a total discombobulated and of the rest of the general public but he has not given in.

he had contact. he has made some decisions for this country that needed to be made for the last 40 years. and the democrats will get in this next time. they just need to hang tough. they need to be as tough as barack obama is. onthey carry on and continue with his policy. don't give in to republicans in the affordable health care act. these are things that should have been changed for 40 years and they have never done it. he is the only person who has stood up and said, this is going to happen. let's hear from luke in western cert -- west chester pennsylvania, supporting other democratic candidates. caller: i want to reiterate that i think that there are two very important things the government -- the democrats need to do to

win in 2016. we have to hold our lead and hispanic demographic. two, and a lot of people , wegree with me on this need to distance ourselves from president obama. he is guilty of perpetrating an attack on this nation. we have to get rid of obama. steve bob from virginia, a supporter of hillary clinton. caller: what the democrats need to do is hang together. immediatelyd to attacked the republicans when them.ttack because they lie, they keep on saying hillary clinton is a liar. what has she lied to? what has been proven? if you don't have an argument you call the other person a

liar, because when to say that that everybody thinks it is so. hillary is truthful. she has always stood with the people with ordinary people. her husband is not running. she is running. she is a strong woman. look how they tried to put her down. she always rises up. oh, youllary and i say can try to knock me down but i will rise up. she needs to stand together with all democrats. we have to work diligently toward the hispanic and the women vote. young women. we are independent women. we will stand up. .e believe in ourselves no human being will bring us down. host: the wall street journal

takes a look at what will happen .o some energy companies they are likely to report results that range from anemic steep losses. oil prices languished under $50 a barrel for most of the endedmonth span that september 30, down over $90 in the same stretch last year. prices overcrude the past 15 months is especially challenging to small and midsize u.s. oil and gas companies, which will report between now and early november. a somewhat survive this downturn. even if oil and gas prices rebound early next year, a full third of american oil and gas producers remain distressed because they borrowed too much money and chased too many expensive product. host: in michigan, david is next. go ahead. caller: good morning.

i support hillary 100%. retiree that is still working in another job, i love obama and what he has done for this country. he is the greatest i have ever had -- we have ever had and i think hillary will be the next greatest. we support her. the democrats need to stand strong. when bidencans -- says the republican's are not our enemies, he is lying. the republican's are our enemies. they have tried to destroy this country. democrat for life. host: wayne from hanover, pennsylvania. good morning. sayer: look, when i got to is bernie sanders. nothing against hillary. is 11 hours.ng come on.

sandershat bernie stands for. that's all i really want to say. god bless america and thank you for c-span very much. by now. up next is louise, san antonio, texas. caller: i think that if hillary castro would take raul as her running mate she would have a very very good chance of getting elected. he is from san antonio texas and very good and popular. highly thought of here in texas. in texas they have a huge amount of people, democrats, that don't even vote because we feel like we have been beaten down by the republicans through gerrymandering and re-doing voter registration with

eliminate a lot of voters. castro would really get them motivated to get democrat.and vote i am hoping she will do that. thank you. from carl in kansas city, missouri. we are asking people what democrats need to do to win the white house. what do you think? ?aller: hello mi on? my tv is muted. cluenk we need to take a from harry truman where he said i don't give them hell, i just tell the truth and they think it is hell. i support claire mccaskill from missouri. what they need to do is moderate the democratic policies by going after the lies and manipulations of the republicans. the irs is a perfect example. those people were trying to keep those who protect from using tax-free spending to do

political work, and instead they got on for concentrating on their politics. that was their job. look at the law. the other thing is with the obamacare, they spent $20 billion telling lies about obama care. there are some things wrong with obamacare it that need to be fixed. they can fix that stuff. they did it with medicare. on other thing is i am minimum -- although i worked all my life -- i am on minimum social security. they are not going to get any increase in social security this year because the price of gasoline went down. i don't even drive and my electric went up 11% and my water bill went up 10%. let's hear one more call from connie in new jersey. you are the last call. caller: i am supporting hillary clinton 100%. , like bernie sanders very much

but they already paid him as a, -- painted him as a communist so i will support hillary clinton. everything they say on their side is a bunch of lies. was anppened in benghazi accident and no one can prevent accidents. last callhat is the we will take on the topic. for tomorrow's program, we will feldmann of the christian science monitor. kolodny will talk about prescription drug abuse eroin.i lauren dawson will