presidential race. 8:15 a.m., todd harrison budget. the defense and 9:00 a.m. marc morial looks a the the role african-americans will play in the 2016 elections. ♪ host: good morning, everyone. the white house yesterday defended a court ruling asking apple to give the fbi access to data on a phone belonging to one of the san bernardino terrorists sing the request is limited and important for national security. apple says in circumventing security software on one phone risks security for all of its customers. we turn to all of you this morning to get your thoughts on this. his privacy or security more important?

republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 join the conversation on twitter or you can go to facebook. the phone lines are open. we will get to your call is just a minute. first, joining us on the phone is the national security reporter with "the washington post." the front page this morning, her headline come apple vows to fight order. what is the government asking apple to do? guest: good morning. thank you for having me. went to court in force apple to for a new software particular iphone used by one of the san bernardino shooters.

override one would of the features on the iphone to let the fbi have a chance to crack the password protecting the contents of the phone that were encrypted. apple to build custom designed a software to get around the feature on the iphone that whites all the data triede phone after you've to 10 times and failed to answer the correct passcode. why can't the fbi do this themselves? can apple do this, technically? guest: according to the experts come apple in fact can technically do this because it is a question of writing new software.

you can basically do anything. they would be writing and replacing software currently on that iphone. , is it aion for them good idea? do they want to do it? apple is making the argument that to force them to do this would be to force them to drastically weaken security of and by extension, the users of their iphone because they feel if they were to make this concession to the government for this phone, they would be asked to do it for other fronts. where would it stop? host: why can't the fbi do it themselves? guest: this is software that apple has been writing for years, it is proprietary. it might be possible, but it would be much more difficult for the fbi to do it.

they might be not likely to .ucceed tim cook sing the implications of the government's demands are chilling -- saying the implications of the government's demands are chilling. is this true? ,f they unlock this one phone doesn't allow the government to input at risk all of apple's consumers? guest: that is apple's legal argument and one that will be tested in court. the government obtained the court order based on a law that which has to 1789

as authority to do things where there is no rich and statute to explicitly direct them to do things. and has been a catchall statute of sorts. it has been used previously a authorizetimes to companies come including apple, to do things such as unlock iphones. time that weirst know of where it's been public that the government is asking software, special software to override a certain feature on the iphone. in order to when the government to crack the password. precedent this set a

or would the fbi or other national security agencies have to continue on a case-by-case basis asking tech companies to open up phones or other devices? guest: there's the technical question and legal precedent. from the technical side, the government is saying we are just asking for help with this one phone. we are not asking you to write software that will apply to all phones. we are not even asking you to unlock the phone itself, just help us override this feature, this function so we can have a pair crack at trying to break the password. the company contends if you are asking us to design software for will be asking us to design software for other phones. once you've got the software, it is a trivial matter to just a

substitute in a new serial number for each phone. weaken the overall security. the legal precedent would depend on what happens in the court. right now, this is an issue in san bernardino limited to that one court. andill likely get appealed could go up to the appeals court. if there's another ruling in another district at odds with this one, it could possibly go to the supreme court. lots of significant issues here. thank you. with all that on the table, we turn to you this morning. is it privacy or national security that is at issue here?

george in ohio. democrat. good morning to you. act -- the patriot host: turn down that tv. talk to your phone. caller: i am. it's like the patriot act. host: you have to go through your phone. stephen in d.c. independent. caller: i definitely think apple should not hand this information over. the juice would not be worth the squeeze. killers in san diego, it doesn't take too much plotting to murder 14 people or even rob five thanks. -- five banks. if suicide is the end result.

host: what about the connections or motivations that led them to do what they did? this could be on the phone. take a look at what the wall street journal puts together. this is the graphic. the phone was last backed up onto icloud on october 19. once the backup stopped, subsequent photos, notes, contacts, messages and video would reside only on this device. the fbi wants 44 days of information on this phone up until december 2 when the shooting took place. there's 44 days of information they want to look at. i don't think their connections are that relevant. anybody can do that come anybody can get away with it come anybody could do it but you cannot get away with it.

dan in new york. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. apple shouldeve budge on this. our privacy is the most important thing in the world. if you go on the internet, you can read stories of washington -- the wall street journal from s outlets new about what our country has been doing to spy on all of this. remember that data collection center in utah? talk to your kids. ask them this question. they have been programmed by the education system in this country to just hand over everything. they have no understanding of what it means to have a private life, to keep things, sensitive information to their self. i know this is not going to sound nice, but i would rather

take my chances with the terrorism overseas than the terrorists in d.c. host: that is how much you just trust this government? jesse in michigan. democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i agree with that gentleman. i fear the people in washington. obama is in the middle of it. have him soticians scared of isis. obama people -- he hasn't done anything for black people. he's going all over the world about leaving a legacy --

host: i don't want to go too far down that path to it i want to stick to the topic this morning, apple versus the fbi. let's listen to the national security argument. was week, the fbi director testifying and this is what he had to say about encryption and how it poses a problem for investigators. [video clip] we call this problem going dark. the growing you seven correction , locked devices when they sit there and to cover communications as they move over fiber-optic cables is overwhelmingly affecting law enforcement. affects cops and prosecutors and sheriffs and detectives trying to make murder cases, car accident cases, kidnapping cases -- it has an impact on our national security work. this is a problem local law enforcement sees. >> this would include

pornography? the list goes on and on. , if at is carried out court certifies the reason is there, the company ought to then produce that information. >> especially with respect to devices, phones that default lock. that is the overwhelming concern. all of our lives are becoming digital. those devices will hold the evidence of child pornography, to medications someone made before they were killed -- communications someone made before they were killed or went missing. it is a big problem for law enforcement armed with a search warrant when you find a device that cannot be opened even if the judge says there is probable cause to open it. importantdino is an

investigation for us but we still have one of those phones we are unable to open. we are still working on it. the fbi director talking about the phone used by one of the san bernardino shooters. now, the fbi went to a court and got an order but apple is refusing to comply. apple has five business days after tuesday's order to respond and has vowed to challenge this order. privacy or security, which is more important? the senate intelligence chairman talking about this issue. this is what senator richard burr had to say yesterday. "court orders are not optional and apple should comply. apple has been asked by the fbi to unlock a government own cell phone to assist in the investigation of a terror attack that killed 14 americans." edward snowden had this to say on twitter --

mike lee says -- senator ron wyden -- barbara in connecticut. independent. caller: good morning. i've been working in technology since before there was an apple, since 1982. i've worked in high-security technology environments. about apple -- this is not about the government accessing your data.

apple already has a way to get at it and they are holding onto the data. this is a discussion we need to address for a long time. it is already there. when you develop software, you don't actually develop something you don't have control over. the issue becomes how much data is apple holding onto? aboutch do they know american privacy and how much are they willing to share with the government? ue in thatt clintonesq there is a private server in a bathroom where here, you have data that apple is holding onto and they may not be willing to let other agencies like the government no how much data they all ready -- they are already collecting. when you talk about issues of , you have to look at what apple is doing already.

they are protecting their own interests. interested in the interests of american citizens. host: are there interests proprietary? caller: not in areas of national security. what this case is bringing up is there are concerns that they will have to reveal how much data they are already collecting. google is also in this. this has been a long time coming and inneed to look at it interest of national security, we need to be able to get the data. there is a way to do it right now, they just want to share -- host: that is what the newspaper is reporting this morning as well. , whats the perfect case the fbi has been waiting for. you have a terrorist attack, a phone, there is no accident that this is the case being brought forth. the fbi is pushing the boundaries here.

, whens a test case to see is privacy more important? when is a security more important? apple forchina asking this information? there again come i don't know how much china already has. like -- this is my feeling watching over technology development over 30 years -- corporations like apple and google are running their own private government collections systems. is in our systems. i'm not sure they would actually ask us. they would just go do it themselves.

they have highly skilled technology workers working on this all the time with dedication and training we don't have in this country. helen in saint david, arizona. democrat. caller: i think security is more important. i don't understand why people put their information on the telephone and are upset at someone accessing it. i still get paper statements. name, it i google my is kind of fun come every address i have ever lived in since 1990 is on that internet. i don't understand why people are so upset. you don't have any privacy. for me to important be able to go to the store and go to the mall and wherever i want to go without any fear of some terrorist killing me or my

family. host: let's hear from kathy in massachusetts. independent. are you there? let me move on to brian in covington, georgia. a republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts? privacy or security? caller: i'm going to stick with what ben franklin says. fore who give up liberty security deserve neither. part of what makes america great, as having our rights. we have to stand by that. take a look at the new york times story on this.

last month, some of president obama's top intelligence advisers met in silicon with tim cook and other technology leaders. so, we turn to all of you, is privacy or security more important?

want to get some other news in as well. endorsed marco rubio yesterday, just a couple of days primarythat saturday -- ahead of that primary saturday for republicans. trump loses ground in this new poll. support for donald trump among republicans has declined in the past month, leaving him slightly behind ted cruz. mr. trump had enjoyed a double-digit lead over his rivals but the new poll found support for him falling by 7% since mid-january. donald trump yesterday in south carolina said the wall street has it out for him. we will talk more about campaign 2016 coming up here in less than

10 minutes. we will talk about what's going on in south carolina and the national polls, staples and the nevada caucuses -- state polls and the nevada caucuses. randy in illinois. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. 9/11, ion is, before would have had to agree with , with this new era after 9/11 and the terrorists in the united states already come if they did crack that phone and find out there was more america, that would be a pretty good thing to do. if apple disagrees with this and the fbi still wants to crack that phone, why don't they have north korea or china do it for them?

it is the republicans who have their primary this saturday in south carolina. democrats will follow one week later on the 27th in south carolina. this saturday is the democratic caucus in nevada. many campaign events we are covering on c-span -- jeb bush this morning campaigning in the palmetto state and 11:45. -- at 11:45. john kasich in the afternoon, we will have his town hall meeting in clemson, south carolina. , 11:30 p.m. eastern time, hillary clinton will be campaigning out there, having a rally in east las vegas. go to www.c-span.org for more information about our coverage. fill in chicago. democrat.

good morning to you. you are on the air. bill in chicago. privacy is dead. can get this from your device. host: we are losing you. bill saying privacy is dead, you cannot have any expectation of privacy. tom and fort appeared republican. -- tom in florida. republican. caller: apple is sitting there earning profits and they don't care how it comes. the government is asking for the code so they can do it themselves. they want apple to help them on this one phone for national security. wait until new york blows up and let the liberals say why they did not stop it.

if you try the pass code and get it wrong 10 times, it erases everything on this phone. darrell in mobile alabama. independent caller. caller: good morning. i just have to say that -- first of all, the caller from did not seem to have a grasp on what exactly was going on. as far as breaking the encryption and that. is,point of this matter willsing that 10 guesses open up not only that device but other devices to all kinds of nefarious characters.

it is better to leave that alone. we are talking about the global economy. therehe solution is out -- once it has been done, the solution will make it out to the wild. it's one of those things that probably needs to be left alone. host: front page of the washington post this morning. the pope goes right to the border.

also, front page of usa today, president obama plans to visit cuba soon, as soon as march. that announcement could be coming today from the white house. this story in the paper this morning in the washington post about the late justice scalia's visit to that luxury ranch. how that highlights his free stay, highlights judicial ethics questions. the ranch owner footed the bill for scalia's accommodations but not the chartered flight on which the justice arrived on a private airstrip on the property. he was invited as a guest along with a friend, just like 35 others. the justice was treated no

differently. there is that story in the paper as well. bob in philadelphia. independent. what is more important, privacy or security?

when it comes to apple versus the fbi. caller: privacy. normally, i would be for security. trust the government after what they've been doing. they told them about the boston bombers twice and they still botched it. our government was spying on us for years and that came out through snowden. i used to trust the government, but after all this -- if they -- government employees's data has been hacked. there and get the best in there. host: donald trump said yesterday that apple should comply. caller: he is wrong with that point because he is not taking

into account how they botched these boston bombers and incompetence they have. host: michigan. republican. you were on the air. air.u are on the caller: thank you for c-span. take. a little different with the idea that -- what do they do with all this information? this is to get more and more information about people. what has been the result? clinton knew about bin laden before he bombed 9/11. aev brothers were on the radar. , they had ano facebook. people onall these the radar and nothing has been prevented.

fewderstand they have a wins, but when you see things who has been monitored and you are worried about apple having a private database -- hillary had a private database. what are they doing with this information? it seems to be the selectivity -- this is where black lights how come the mix -- they are selected? in this freedom issue, people in charge are pulling their selectivity in this political atmosphere. host: tim in michigan. democrat. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: doing fine. justr: maybe they should go the other way and open it up for everybody and let all the information be accessible to everybody. isn't that what the lord does? host: ok.

we will return to this conversation in our last half an hour of today's "washington journal." you can keep watching and call in later. when we come back come on we will turn to campaign 2016 and antle about m south carolina and the upcoming nevada caucuses. will joind harrison us to help break down the president's proposal for the pentagon's fiscal 2017 budget. we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend, book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors on c-span2. , depomed editor

for the guardian talks about the slobodan milosevic. on sunday night at 9:00, cory booker discusses his book "united." he recounts the people and personal experiences that shaped his political thinking. my personal experience, growing up with an african american family, attending black church and living in a white town, i had crisscrossing minds cities and to inner yale, it showed me how united as a country we are. >> television for serious

readers. c-span's coverage of the presidential candidates continues this week with campaign events in south carolina and nevada. leading up to the south carolina gop primary and the nevada saturday. caucuses on our live coverage and on saturday at 7:30 p.m. eastern with candid speeches and your reaction to the results. jim antle at our table this morning. politics editor with you washington examiner. i want to show our viewers what the governor nikki haley had to say when she endorsed marco rubio yesterday. [video clip] >> we have good people in this race. we have good people running for president. i thank them today for their sacrifice and they're willing to serve to honor this great country and make her better.

but my job was to find the person i thought could do it the best. i wanted somebody with fight my wanted somebody with passion, i wanted somebody who had conviction to do the right thing. i wanted somebody humble enough that remembers that you work for all the people. i wanted somebody who was going to go and show my parents that the best this vision they ever made for their children was coming to america. made.t decision they ever [applause] every day is a great day in south carolina. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen come if we elect marco rubio come every day will be a great day in america. [applause] help me welcome the next president of the united states,

let's go to the polls on saturday and prove that, by the way, marco rubio! [applause] host: what did that due to the race in south carolina? guest: it is a big endorsement for rubio. nikki haley is popular. her approval rating is high. her personal story, her family history and her relative youth for an elected official reinforced some basic messages in the narrative that marco rubio is looking for to promote his own candidacy. he needs a bit of a boost. he disappointed in new hampshire after a strong showing in iowa. inerally, he is contention for second place but generally behind ted cruz and donald trump. he could use a bit of a boost. for: what does this mean

senator ted cruz who has been trying to frame this race as a two-man race between him and donald trump? guest: it is clearly not a two-man race yet. what you are seeing at the moment is ted cruz and marco rubio are fighting for a certain slice of the conservative electorate. rubio is fighting with jeb bush and john kasich for establishment backing within the republican party. there is a trump versus cruz contest going on for another slice of populist, disaffected republican voters. host: according to the wall , tedt journal nbc poll cruz is now on top nationally. other polls show donald trump is still on top. -- he hasas been ratcheted up his argument, his criticism of donald trump.

here's what he had to say recently about donald trump's record on social issues. [video clip] ,> i have to say to mr. trump you have been threatening frivolous lawsuits for your entire adult life. even in the annals of frivolous lawsuits, this takes the cake. donald, would encourage you come if you want to file a lawsuit challenging this ad, file a lawsuit. it is a remarkable contention that an added that plays video of donald trump speaking on national television is somehow defamation. words come from donald trump's own mouth.

if a candidate has a record like donald trump's how he could consider anybody pointing to his actual record being defamation. if he files a lawsuit he threatened in this letter, that lawsuit will be frivolous and will result in both donald trump and any lawyer that signs his frivolousiling litigation. host: donald trump has pushed back. poll showing ted cruz is making headway come are these attacks working? guest: we saw in iowa that when donald trump is actually attacked and treated like a normal candidate, it does have some effect on his numbers. it has an affect on his favorables. being good disciples of adam

smith, they are looking at their comparative advantage. ted cruz is a checklist conservative. he can check all the boxes on the issues and say i have taken conservative positions and voted a conservative way on those issues. donald trump is more an attitudinal, gut level conservative. he is appealing to an attitude and an anger. trying to attack him on whether he has been consistent on the issues and seeing if you can get some traction there. who hasu have jeb bush put all of his chips in new hampshire and south carolina. according to these polls, he is still not faring well in south carolina, at 4%. what does the endorsement of marco rubio from nikki haley mean for jeb bush? guest: it could conceivably be a changing of the guard. he brought in his brother.

he has the support of lindsey graham. we could be seeing a younger ,eneration coming to the fore which is what marco rubio would like to see. jeb bush needs to do something in satellite. -- south carolina. host: south carolina will decide bush's campaign. if you does not do well, is it over for him? guest: it depends on whether he decides it's over. a lot of voters and owners are willing to make that decision for him. if you does poorly given that he has had some organization there come if you cannot make any impact with the voters there, it will be hard to see how he has any impact going forward. [video clip]

>> if we can win in south carolina, we could run the table. i don't know if you saw -- [applause] >> i guess a lot of you have seen, next week in nevada, it will be phenomenal. bush is 1% in nevada. why doesn't he just give up and go home? go home to mommy. bush is only at 1% in nevada. a couple of them are at 12% and i met 48% -- i am at 48%. host: what has donald trump done to jeb bush's campaign? bush.er lets up on jeb guest: trump clearly views jeb bush as a convenient punching bag.

he is a symbol of what trump is running against. jeb bush is a dynasty figure, old money, party establishment. ands symbolic of what trump people who support him argue is a republican leadership that has failed to deliver. would not have been able to raise $100 million without his family name. the family name with voters has hurt him. , politicalntle editor with the washington examiner here to take your comments and questions about campaign 2016. the democrats caucusing in nevada on saturday. start dialing in. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000.

.ndependents, 202-748-8002 michael in new york. independent. caller: i have a comment on donald trump coming in second. ted cruz would be my second choice. donald trump is a great businessman. greatuz doesn't have that -- i would take donald trump over heavily clin hillary clint. host: how is it shaping up in these hypothetical matchups? if it is donald trump versus hillary clinton or another republican candidate versus hiller clinton or bernie sanders. guest: so far, it doesn't make a huge difference. bernie sanders is slightly outperforming hillary clinton in some of the most recent matchups.

really you are seeing a generic partisan vote. byt: does a possible entry michael bloomberg -- is that a credible strategy for michael bloomberg to get in? could human and independent bid -- could he win an independent bid? guest: he said it is difficult to win if you are not a major party candidate. he got elected in new york the first time as a republican. bloomberg would have some degree of constituency. mostlyd be competing with hillary clinton's basin vote. -- a base vote.

host: does it help republicans? guest: it would marginally help republicans. bloomberg would draw more votes from the republicans. host: tim in abingdon, virginia. democrat. crazy, crazyis politics we've got going on this year. i kind of like bernie sanders. there's a lot of problems in our country we could fix with just common sense. we need our troops on the border. security,ix social take 50% of the earned income tax credit and put that on social security. that would more than pay for health care in this country.

minimum wage, raise it, but wait until they are 18 years old. better.hings get thank you for c-span. host: jim antle, what is it looking like heading into nevada for democrats this saturday between hillary clinton and bernie sanders? is a state where hillary clinton has been favored. it will be a relatively low turnout caucus. bernie sanders has been making some headway. the two groups you want to watch our latino voters who should be heavilydeliver hel for hillary clinton whereas union voters will be big for the nevada democrats. where do they go? union leadership has been favoring clinton, but there's a lot of support for sanders in union rank-and-file. host: that could be why they say they will hold off on a presidential endorsement.

bernie.a big win for guest: it is a big win for bernie. there's a desire among union leadership to coalesce around hillary clinton to get onboard with the front runner and the likely nominee early even though bernie sanders is closer to the heart of a lot of rank-and-file union members. the longer he can delay organized labor getting into the canton camp, the more he create the impression that this is still a competitive race. if you can create that impression after strong performances in new hampshire and i will come and that perception can become a reality. host: hillary is featured in both magazine. -- vogue magazine. to reporter having access hillary clinton following her on the campaign trail from iowa to new hampshire.

atlanta, michigan. republican. caller: i'm very disappointed in the republican voters supporting trump. they are not voting with their brain, they're just voting on what they think they can get. a completet finish sentence when he is asked a question. he doesn't know anything about trade. he thinks we are dealing with when he was asked who he would pick for a supreme court replacement for scalia, he quipped, my sister is a federal judge. i might appoint her. a few days later, he said he was just joking. his sister is the most avid

pro-abortion judge there is, even sing partial or subversion is ok. -- saying partial birth abortion is ok. death willia's of donaldhe scrutiny trump. he has made a lot of conflicting statements. he has no real track record of legal and judicial issues. or marcoe ted cruz rubio, this is a really huge issue for you to highlight. do you want to nominate donald trump? do you want to have the judge is that donald trump would choose? it is a big issue that would peel off some of the evangelicals and conservatives from donald trump. host: the stakes in south carolina -- donald trump can

talk the talk, but he has not mastered the walk. republicans and independent voters in south carolina and elsewhere call him a moderate because they cannot fit him into either ideology. helpedfian persona has in the early primaries and caucuses. the risks and challenges this time are considerably greater than usual. every voter in south carolina in the states that follow must keep that in mind. why do you think they write that? because of the math? guest: right now, there is a large anti-trump vote.

when you have some one-on-one , it looks like they could beat him in a one-on-one race. we will have to see what happens . the fact that they are attacking each other so ferociously and competing with each other and calling one another names plays into trump's hand because it keeps that vote divided and creates no incentive for either of them to get out. host: so far giving him the most delegates. ,uest: to the greater extent the race looks like a circus outside of trump. it makes trump look like he is more in keeping with the dynamic of the race. there's this feeling that we

have a sophisticated dinner party that donald trump is the boorish guest who hasn't shown upuninvited -- has shown uninvited. a lot of name-calling and anger. likeore donald trump looks -- it plays into the message that trump is sending that this is a circus to begin with. host: union point, georgia. independent. hello, richard. caller: i think we look at a race that is going to change america this year because look back at what america was founded on was the working class. people came to america to live free. -- whole campaign republicans freed the slaves. it wasn't the democrats.

motors forr general 24 years. you keep a budget you can afford. we can get to a place where -- don't look at what the country can do for you, but when you can do for your country. that is a theme your hearing over and over again. it is across the spectrum of all the candidates. marco argues that president obama is changing the nature and character of the country. it is a really big theme throughout our public and primary. host: on twitter --

jim antle? guest: there is no question that has family ties are why he is so well-funded. you talk to republican primary voters all the time who say i kind of like jeb but i don't think the country needs another bush and i'm tired of there being so many bush's. it has been a stumbling block as we've headed into the primaries. host: south carolina. kathy, good morning to you. independent caller. caller: good morning. host: who are you going to vote for? caller: we are trump supporters. , myhole family sisters, their husbands. the thing i like about trump, he

is for the american citizen. it seems like the establishment -- i'm a registered republican from years ago. i'm an evangelical christian. it seems like every time the vote came around, the establishment republicans give -- they havelicals gay marriage, they are doing partial-birth abortions, they are cutting baby parts up. i'm angry. don't come ask for my vote now whenever what you have said you were going to do and you did nothing. you sat silently by. because he is for

the american citizen. have the same resume as the president in the office today. host: kathy says she is angry. 47% of new hampshire republicans said they felt betrayed by republican politicians. guest: that is a really big thing driving donald trump's appeal. people are saying he did not take that conservative position. you'll hear a lot of voters like the caller who say we have these people who took the right changed? whatwhat was different after we elected them? that is trump's main argument. i'm not beholden to anybody and i can produce these results that

politicians have promised and never delivered. host: a fourth line for south carolina voters. continue to call in from south carolina. two days to go before you get to vote in the republican primary there. 202-748-8003. elijah in florida. democrat. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. like people like bernie sanders and john kasich -- if john kasich one new hampshire -- he needs to team up with rubio or z and ben carson should be donald trump's vice president. host: jim antle? would be on asich

lot of people's short list for vice president. he has done some things as governor that have alienated conservatives. the medicare expansion, the rhetoric used in arguing with opponents of that expansion. solid conservative record in the governor of ohio, he must win state for republicans if they are going to win in november. it is hard to see john kasich's path forward after new hampshire. but i could see him on a lot of people's short list for vice president. host: south carolina and the newspaper down there. guest: a lot of editorial boards really like john kasich. host: a democrat. caller: i have got a comment.

i want to say i'm kind of with theted republicans and their party. they do nots like care what happens to america. everything is obama's fault. i have a quick story. i did not agree with anything george bush had to say, but when he got us through -- a shoe thrown at him, i was so angry they have the nerve to do that to my president, even though i do not agree with him. i feel like republicans do not care what happens to obama. everything is his fault. like someone said earlier, republican elections right now are looking like a circus. every time you have a

thereversial president, are trips down memory lane suggesting everyone is happier with a previous -- previous president. any queue will hear a lot more of that kind of argument being made as we debate the supreme court vacancy. i think the democrat line will say it is naked obstructionism or worse if senate republicans do not want to consider a successor to scalia nominated by obama. front story at the examiner is the senate gop likely to hold line on obama supreme court pick. sandra day o'connor has said to get on with it, that you should not have a vacancy for a year. behind thepening

scenes with your story? what are you reporting? all the incentives would be to oppose president obama's's nominee, whomever that is. getlikelihood we will someone who is not a reliable member of the liberal bloc of the court is very small. we're talking about which lock will soak -- will control the supreme court. that has effectively evolved into the primary policymaking body in a lot of dozen or so issues in the united states. the next supreme court justice will have more to say about the legal status of abortion, marriage, religious liberty, from of action, than any senators. hightakes are every bit as as for who controls the senate.

you have as much of an interest to affect that outcome is any senate race. democrat,ip, democrats get to vote. how do you plan to vote? sanders -- bernie sanders wins the nomination, i will vote for donald trump. the republican party, they value god and are evangelical christians. it a were really questions, they were not think about donald is nowhere near that. the republican party are bunch of hypocrites because i say one thing about christianity and god, and they talk about president obama like he is the devil. i think they are a bunch of hypocrites. robert, an to

independent. caller: it is not much toferent, i love hillary help me figure it out on the republican side, i could even but my problem you give credence to us far as who you vote for. i'm thinking about not even i do not want to vote for one of the others, especially on democrat side. andan vote republican here i am thinking about voting republican, but i want to know if hillary will come up on or if ted cruz can qualify with him being born in canada. donald trump's main line

of attack with ted cruz was the birthright. he has backed off a little bit with that. obviously, the e-mail question with hillary clinton i think is more signet appeared -- significant. it is not clear what impact that has happened with democratic primaries of than her numbers who are voting based on who they think is honest and trustworthy, not good. extent the e-mails versus her overall reputation, it is not very clear. talkingmes antle

earlier about the supreme court battle, republicans holding strong opposing the nominee in his closing month -- months of the presidency. republicans clash wednesday over how to battle president obama's is expected nomination as the white house left over in the remote possibility the president might stop a -- guest: it is an option the president has. the supreme court actually ruled at one his use of recess point when it was not evident the senate was in recess. is a chip the president could use.

it would not be a lifetime appointment at that point. the samenot have lasting effect on the supreme court majority and it would keep the issue alive into november, whether or not he made the appointment. you will hear some of -- some republicans debate amongst themselves the optics of what it would be like to stop a nomination by obama and what it will do for their prospects for control for the senate. the moment the elegance were up for reelection, and to be holding firm. i would expect the senate leadership to do so. joshua, independent, you're next. you're quiet moments, do you ever wonder why newspapers are following like dominoes to bankruptcy and lack of interest? back to the campaign, we were to believehildren

anybody could be president. your assertion that donald trump does not have macro experience or does not have overview of core jurisprudence, these are falling on deaf ears to people who believe the garbage men could be president of the united if you surround yourself with the best and brightest people with expertise, you can use your judgment and discernment. most politicians and i am not a huge trump fan, but i like that he is holding politicians feet to the fire. maybe you could do good things for the country and maybe he won't, but i think the assertion like a gentleman -- by a gentleman like yourself, that he has a micro knowledge or he has to be able to shoot magic out of his fingertips is nonsensical.

host: i heard your point. guest: i don't remember microfilm out of micronesia, but the question a lot of people have, none trump voters, thel the majority of republican electorate, is does donald trump have the knowledge to do things he promises to do? say they will make some the great again. getting from point a to point b seems difficult. trump is all caps by saying he has managerial expertise. maybe so. host: james on our lines for democrats. caller: i'm a sociologist.

i will tell you donald trump owes his support to barack obama and the reason is that birther movement. if you listen to the pavlovian response the average voter has been conditioned, you say hillary clinton and harry reid and you get this response. the establishment has been telling the average american it -- the reason their lives are visible is it is the democrats faults, the black's, the immigrants faults, and all of that has been conditioned and their lives are still miserable. they are angry at the republican establishment because barack obama has not been impeached. host: let's take his there he. guest: there is a lot of anger toward the president. i think donald trump, while he got on the map politically through a lot of the birther stuff in his using the birther

stuff on his opponents for the it isican nomination, hard to see how he could be doing as well as he is doing if there were not a crisis of confidence with republican leadership. if there were that the party leaders would do with a promise to do, i do not see trump having quite the same appeal. a lot of it is channeling the anger of the party establishment for not a combatant anything. if there were greater confidence or happiness with the recent record, i do not know if trump would have a leg to stand on. host: in, a republican. we lost him. we will go on to ernie. littleton, colorado. good morning to you.

caller: good morning. ben carson, trump, and bernie sanders are the only ones not supported by super pac. it seems like ben carson is probably the smartest of them all. them on either side of the aisle has mentioned how they would pay the debt off, not just balance the budget, because we know they would go over the budget. just like what happened in greece, bernie sanders is the only candidate on either side that wants to re-implement the glass-steagall act, which would protect us from bailing out or going in to big banks and corporations. what about that sentiment

out there? donald trump and bernie sanders, people are traffic to them because donald trump is paying for his own campaign and does not oh anybody anything. right, although he has done well with earned media and has not had to spend much on his campaign, but that is exact right. the view is donald trump would not be beholden to anybody. the democratic side, it is a lot of bernie sanders appear -- appeal as well. he is not reliant on super pac contributions. he is getting a lot of his money from small, democratic donors. he average of $27, and yet is raising money and a way that is competitive with hillary clinton, who is getting a lot of money from big donors. it is appealing and a time where people are disaffected with the establishment in both parties. host: we will have to leave the conversation there for now. find more reporting from the washington examiner, you can go to their website. thank you for your time.

we appreciate it. we will take a short rate. we will switch topics in turn our attention to the pentagon's budget. we will talk with todd harrison and break down the budget request for you. later, mark will join us, the president and ceo of the national urban league to discuss -- presidential candidates we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend, c-span cities takes us to greenville, south carolina. to its were the city's's and literary culture on booktv. of 1939, whenr europe went to work, our allies,

primarily england and france, look to washington dc for goods and materials that they needed. washington, d.c., looked down to the textile capital of the world and all the sudden, government contracts came funneling in to this area, asking the mills here to begin producing for the war effort initially for our allies and of course for the united states as well. here are standing right and this was a nasty spot. it is hard to believe now looking at it, one of the best parks in the country. place and it is a great story of how a community and starthind a park to appreciate and cherish its river and waterfall again. >> watch the c-span cities tour

saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> i think we are on the cusp of a progressive revolution. i consider bernie sanders and hillary clinton, both of them, progressive or one will be president and now is a good time to take stock and say, ok, how this guy do that we thought was a real progressive, how did he do and what can we learn from that experience, as we move to the next administration. q&a, billnight on press talks about his book, how obama let progressives down, which takes a critical look at the obama presidency. sammy burke -- senator bernie sanders recently spoke out in favor of the book.

harmless.rb is it does not endorse the book. it really repeats the point he makes in every campaign speech, which is, twofold. one that we need a political revolution, and that is his phrase, and that the political revolution means the progressives really have to keep the pressure on the next besident, whom we hope will a democrat and a progressive, bernie or hillary, to stick and be true to the progressives and follow through and not compromise. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. joining us now, we have todd harrison, the defense budget analyst director at the center for strategic and international studies. will be talking about the department of defense budget. thank you for joining us.

have a brief overview for our viewers and explain the top line items and a difference budget the core defense and the war fund. guest: on february 9, the president submitted his annual budget request to congress which included the budget for the pentagon. included in the defense budget is 524 billion and what is known as the base budget. that is core defense budget, the cost of having a department of defense, regardless of what is going on in the world, and then separate from that, they included a $59 billion budget an account known as overseas contingency operations, which is supposed to be war related emergency supplemental funding. the real distinction between the base budget and the war budget is how it is treated under the budget control act. that is a law that congress put back in place in 2011 to help

control federal spending, which acrossdatory budget caps defense and nondefense portions of the budget. process known as sequestration. people are probably familiar with that word over the past few years. the way trees defense funding is different, that you have got the base budget that counts toward the budget caps, but the war funding is not cap. it does not count toward your budget cap. anything you put in war funding does not count toward your wretched cap. that is the way the department can exceed the budget caps without triggering a sequester. it is important because that has been used in recent years. increasingly for things that are next -- not actually were related. administratione have put more and more funding in there that used to be in the base budget. basically in order to get around these budget caps so they could increase defense spending without having to increase the

budget caps by an equal amount. the distinction between what really belongs in the base ledger and what really belongs in the warbler -- war budget, has been blurred so much that if you look at the details, you can hardly tell the difference. there are so many things in the war budget that used to be in the base budget that as an analyst, i just consider them together at this point. host: is there any literate -- a limit to how high the war budget could go? is willingt congress to appropriate. there is no statutory limit here with the base budget, there is a limit. they requested $524 billion because that is the limit this year. it is all they can request for dod. unless congress raises the budget caps. the war funding is not cap so there is not a limit. -- $59quested 50 mike billion because the budget deal that was struck last year, it was said that under the agreement, the department would get at least the amount of war

funding they got in the previous year, which was $59 billion. so they are requesting $59 billion again this year to keep with the spirit of the deal. host: we want to bring our callers into the conversation. you can call in on the republican line, and democrats can call -- host: can we talk about how the dod compares to its budget with other agencies? what part of the overall budget does the defense budget makeup? how does it compare to other agencies? thet: if you been down overall federal budget, it is about $4 trillion per year. there is a big division in the budget between what they call discretionary and mandatory. trillion goes to

mandatory items are the term is a little confusing. really means that it is funding on autopilot where congress has passed a law in the past considered a permanent appropriation. so the amount of money that gets funded on these accounts is determined by a formula set in law. mandatory funding includes ,hings like social security medicare, medicaid, and many veterans benefits and services. in there big items mandatory portion of the budget. the discretionary portion is about $1 trillion per year and defense is a out half of that. the nondefense is the other half. the nondefense part of the discretionary budget includes everything from funding for nasa, education, transportation, and the other part of veterans benefits and services is in the nondefense part of the discretionary budget. the state department of international affairs, those

types of items are considered nondefense. what is in the defense side of the budget is the department of defense, and the nuclear weapons related activities. upthose things together make the defense part of the discretionary budget. last week, the department of defense chief financial officer mike talked a little bit about how recent budget deals have impacted the department of defense budget. let's play that for our viewers now. to 17, the two bars on the right coming we only got about $2.53 this year from last year, was in terms of the budget deal, very flat and was exactly flat in the budget for those two years. , what i'll call

kitchen table math, what did you have this year as opposed to last year, the pay raises for the budget basically consume that amount of money. we really had a flat amount of money once we got done with the condensation part to work with. that's based to the deputy's point about this be more about the shape of the budget than the size. to the yearback before, one of the reasons the secretary will say he is grateful for the budget deal is it jumped us up $25 billion from where we had been struck -- stuck in a rut for years. i would rather be in the 520 neighborhood than the 490 neighborhood and that is what the budget deal did for us. it is a better jumping off point. can you talk more about how last year's agreement is shaping the budget? guest: once the budget control act went into effect, it set the

budget caps for defense and nondefense. dealse had three budget since then that modify the budget cap here the first deal was in 2012 and increased the budget cap for fiscal year 13 and brought it up to a level of $495 billion for the dod budget. deal in 2013equent that increased the budget cap for fiscal year 14 and 15 and kept it at $495 billion per year in the base budget. at most recent budget deal -- enacted in november increased the budget cap. the budget up to 521 billion, and for fiscal year 17, it has come in at $524 billion. the department

has gotten some relief from the original level of the budget caps. up the increases from what the budget cuts would have been to how they have been modified over the years, it ends up being a cumulative increase of $97 billion over the past five years. sorts for they of pentagon, but still far less than the pentagon had been planning for. year oft every single the obama administration, the president obama has requested a defense spending higher than what they have allowed. it has been a give-and-take and a back-and-forth between the administration and congress over defense spending. host: up first on our independent line, we have john from orange, texas. you are on. caller: thank you. a slightly more technical question. know we have not declared war on anyone since world war ii, so

i am wondering about the definition of war. for budget terms. secondly, i know the amount for the entitlement of veterans, veterans begich -- benefits, also in the budget amount. i wonder if you could address that amount and explain why it is separated. it is a great question and it has that the to do with whether or not we declare work there is it is something congress and the administration get to define what else. technically in budget terms, the were related budget is called emergency supplemental funding. to the process it goes through in congress for how it is appropriated. connection tove a whether or not it is were related to whatever is allowed in the account is whatever congress and the administration decide to put in there. it does not have to be connected to real world combat operations

at all. if you dig into the details, about half of the funding really has no connection to operations in iraq, syria, and afghanistan. it is part of the peacetime presence and deterrence operations the military conducts on a regular basis. that is why i say there are a lot of ink that had been in the past that they are now putting in the war budget as a way of maneuvering around the budget caps. this is something congress and the administration have in doing and this is not something you can blame on one party or the other. spending, aveterans lot of people do not realize that we spend on these services is not a part of defense budget. it is considered nondefense. the total amount of funding for veterans benefits and services right now is $160 billion per year.

is growing rapidly. i believe on the obama administration took up 2009, we were spending $100 billion a year. it has grown substantially and a lot of the growth is due to vietnam-era veterans entering the most extensive time of their lives in terms of health care costs. the baby boomer generation, those costs are projected to continue growing by an of the decade. it will probably be above $200 billion per year. part of the defense budget. it is carried separately in the federal budget. our democraticn line, elroy from arizona. you're on todd harrison. i am retired from arkansas. i used to be an administrator myself when george w. bush was in. say, if we could

reallocate our dollars to make -- reallocate our dollars to go with the times along with the times of the jobs that we have today, producing money, could we not improve our revenue and something like that knowingly invest in future jobs, that could actually improve the economy and the budget of what you guys are dealing with? a good point, how we spend our money and how it can be used most effectively to not just benefit the military but the economy overall. a lot of talk over that. one topic that has come up a lot can wefence is how restructure military pay and benefits to be more competitive with the private sector?

you are seeing companies in the private sector are using many different forms of pay and benefits to attract and maintain talent. military is stuck with the compensation system designed in the 1940's and 1950's. that has been a big topic of conversation. there has been an effort in pentagon where they are trying to look at this and reshape military pay and benefits so they will be more competitive with the private sector. that means things like increasing maternity leave, changing the retirement system so congress this past year added a new part of the retirement system for the military, a 401(k) like plan so people can divert some of their paycheck into a plan and get a matching contribution from the government. thathave their own savings

would then supplement the retirement pension the military still offers. in the private sector, fewer companies are offering pensions anymore. they are offering more flexible retirement plans. the pentagon is doing what it can but it needs a lot of help in congress so they can be more competitive with private sector jobs. host: we are talking with todd harrison. you also formally worked at booz allen and was a captain in the , aboutr force reserve the president's defense spending budget put forth by the president. you were reported as calling this defense budget a punt by the president. what did you mean by that? ways, theyany

avoided making difficult decisions this year. it is somewhat to be expected they will continue to be on the course they have been on for the past seven years. he did not see a lot of changes. we do not see major programs get canceled in this version so i think they are putting off a lot of big decisions they will make to the next generation. right now in the pentagon's plans, they have got a modernization wave. comestter -- the metaphor from a ship. you push and in front of a ship leading out in front of you, a goes up and you just keep pushing it out and pushing it out. you look at dod's long-term weapons modernization plans, and they are planning to modernize large parts of the floor structure in a way that he could costs will overlap in time and

they will peak in the early 20's. it will be difficult to execute the plans and a funny might not be available. there is a reckoning that will .ave to come at some point we will have to delay these programs and scale them back and ask for a massive infusion of funds to cover the bill. much movement on that this year in the budget rick west. that is why i say they are pointing to the next administration. nextll be up to the president to deal with these issues. do we usually see presidents at the end of their administration punting on the budget in that way? guest: there is a mixed record. at the end of the george w. bush and ministration, we were

in iraq and that was really a ramp-up time for the department. the budget was still growing pretty rapidly. at the end ofck the clinton administration, we thein at the bottom of drawdown and starting to build up again. seere starting to increasing in budget spending. it depends on the conditions but on this administration, my assessment of the budget with west is it is largely a punt to the next team. our next caller we have on our democratic line from reston, virginia, alex, you are on. caller: you mentioned earlier that of the $4 trillion budget, andrillion is mandatory already set in stone and the 530

billion dollars you are mentioning comes from the $1 trillion in discretionary's ending. is is the entire $3 trillion of mandatory spending or i know you mentioned the veterans program. are there also programs within rnd orlso relating to anything else relating to the defense budget? or turning self retained in that discretionary? a small part of the dot budget is mandatory, generally about $6 billion a year. of $3a small part trillion in mandatory spending. thatast majority of mandatory spending is going to social security, medicare, medicaid, and part of the benefits and services i talked about earlier. drivers. the real

that is not set in stone. it is set in law and law can be changed. that can be altered over time. but congress is typically reluctant to make changes to these programs because to make the near-termect budget horizon, you are talking about changing benefits for current beneficiaries. many of these people are retirees so you are talking about changing what they get in the social security check or what they get in terms of andcare benefits politically, it tends to be a nonstarter. ok.: up next, we have peter from valley college new york. caller: valley cottage, new york. mr. harrison, i have read over the years that the biggest is that ath the dod

lot of the money appropriated to is department of defense used for bureaucracy. from what i heard from the generals on television is that the bureaucracy has grown so big that it isars sucking up most of the money and not as much money as should be going into actual defense. that is a big problem that needs to be addressed. if you could talk about that, thank you. part of the difficulty in discussing this is, what do you define as a bureaucracy? there is about 1.4 million in the uniform active military and about 750,000 dod civilians and then separately, we do not have a good count on the number of contractors that support the department of defense, but it is probably close to the number of dod civilians.

that is the workforce we are talking about. most of those civilian workers work outside of washington dc area, i think about 85% of them are spread all over the country, various military installations. they do a variety of jobs. many of them do blue-collar jobs. baseare doing things like maintenance, depot maintenance of equipment. large, government run depots that do overhaul of some of our major he admit. there are a lot of civilians doing things like that. there are still a fair number doing more administrative tasks. and there are many contractors also doing more administrative tasks. talk about the bureaucracy growing, with they are generally referring to are the headquarters staffs. the headquarters of each of the services, of each of the combat and commands around the globe that cover the various geographic areas.

and the staff right here in the pentagon that works in the office of secretary of defense. if you look at the numbers, they have grown significantly over the years. still are a very small percentage of the overall dod workforce. in terms of a driver of the budget, the benefits and pay for those people are not really a budget driver because the numbers are in the tens of thousands and not the 100s of thousands of people. it still is a big issue and folks in congress are picking up on this now. in recent legislation, they mandated reductions and the size of those headquarters staffs. , that hast mandate not taken effect yet. dealare working on how to with that. it is already in the works. they are also looking this year

reform,ming, nichols which refers to the goldwater nichols act that passed 30 years ago. they are looking at doing a similar restructuring this year. things they are talking about our maybe combining headquarters. do some delay airing, take out layers of bureaucracy and headquarters, change some of the roles within the department. at all ofs looking these things this year and a department of defense itself has started a group looking at the changes. we may see legislative activity on that later this year. continuing our discussion of the defense budget, we know said marlon from maryland on the democratic line. you are on. my question pertains to

how the budget is actually audited, particularly such a huge portion of it. i was wondering because i heard contractorsthat bill the government high prices. my friend told me he billed the government $500 to install a toilet seat in an aircraft or something like that. i was wondering if the people writing the checks have any sort of oversight or you could get more official insight into what that is like. there was a project on government oversight report that came out in the 1980's a while back that exposed excessive overbilling and the department of defense. . $500 toilet seat the truth is, you can still find

small examples like that in the military. terms of an audit, the defense department has not yet passed an audit. they are working on it and it is long overdue. a lot of the problem with auditing the pentagon is you are dealing with financial management to stones, databases, if you will, that are very old that do not talk to each other very well in do not meet modern accounting standards. it is in many ways an i.t. problem that the pentagon is trying to solve. what an audit will do is not andssarily uncover fraud waste. it will provide better transparency and accountability when congress appropriates money all the way down and make sure that it was all spent according to how congress appropriated the funds. oversight is already happening at lower levels within

the military down at the base level and the unit level. thele are responsible for oversight right now. you sometimes hear about failing when people have not done proper oversight and have not scrutinized contracts adequately, but that tends to be the exception, i think. fraud, waste, and abuse is a crime. that does get prosecuted. you do see people go to jail from time to time because of that. while the pentagon needs to pass an audit and the sooner the better, in terms of public account and transparency, i would not count on that coming up with a lot of savings in the budget. there is not a simple line in the budget somewhere for rate -- four waste that you could eliminate. say, ity frank used to is not like fat on the peas of a stake where you could just trim it off the edge. if that is marbled in the meat and it is hard to get it after it happens.

low level in a lot of different places. he requires good discipline, management, and oversight from the top all the way down to the lowest levels. host: can we talk about major procurement programs that are eliminated under the budget? not really cut any major programs under this budget. the big programs you see continuing like the f 35 joint strike fighter, that did see some reductions. the f 30 model, they actually areback on what they planning to buy over the next five years. they reduced the by by 45 over the next five years. that is a slight reduction corpsred by the marine upping what they will -- is the program just getting started is

the next generation bomber, a stealthy bomber that stands for a long-range strike bomber. that program is just getting underway. there have been some delays and they slipped the schedule a bit and slipped the funding for that in this budget. it is a reduction of $3.5 billion over the next five years. it is not that the money is saved. the money will be spent later. a lot of the programs are continuing as planned. that is why i think the budget is a punt to the administration. i do not think it is realistic that all these programs cannot continue as planned. host: ok. .e are talking to todd harrison alan asked caller is sandra from columbus, georgia. independent lines. you are on. old army bratn

you are my father served in world war ii in korea. he did quattro tour is in vietnam in which he was killed on the fourth tour. i have brothers and friends that are baby boomers like me. we have got a better v.a. system here in the southeast than in most areas of the country, but the vets here that need medical care, they have to drive at least 100 miles to the nearest , which ato get care lot of them after they get up to a certain point and are children do not live close to them, they do not have access to get to these hospitals. i live right outside georgia, one of the largest army basis -- bases that this country has. it is not clear to me why this large a population of retired

veterans,wounded probably a couple 100,000, at and theetired veterans, kids coming back from afghanistan and iraq that live in the area, they cannot get the becausecare they need they have to go so far to get it. it is not explainable to me and i am one of these people that i love my country and every american in this country ought to be hanging their heads in shame with what the veterans administration has done. host: all right. let's give todd a chance to talk about that a little bit. the caller is exactly right and highlights a major issue here. this is part of the veterans affairs budget and not the dod budget. of the $160 billion i talked

about, the veteran's benefits and services, a little over $50 billion of it goes to veterans health care and that has grown substantially because they are trying to do with the problem they have got. they have got so many people seeking a medical care and the veterans health care system. the system is just not designed to supported and they are not providing adequate care for folks and there are a lot of youons out there for what can do one option is, let's just give veterans and insurance card where they can go out to private sector in -- providers and get health care. is likely going to increase cost because more people will actually get the health care they need so the budget will go up. that is why i say this is a major issue in the federal budget and this is a cost we will have to pay. it is something we promised our veterans.

we will have to pay the bill and find offsets in the federal budget, whether cutting spending in other areas or increasing revenues to cover this for running a higher deficit. another issue is how people from the dod military health care system to the veterans health care system. when you are in the active duty, you're covered in the military health care system. you leave before retirement age and have qualifying conditions, then you can go in the veterans health care system, a different health care system, both run by the government. you would think they would talk to each other but now, they have trouble transferring people's medical records. it is something they're working on, coming up with an electronic health care medical record system that could be more easily transported from the military to the v.a.. that would be a big step in the right direction once they get

that problem under control. host: let's talk about a little bit about the ranches in the military base in the budget. we have $148 billion for the army. it is a $1.1 billion increase. got $167 billion. which branch run -- one in the budget? guest: if you just look at whether the numbers went up or down, the air force went up by a little over 3% in the budget. the navy went down and the army basically stayed flat. the marine corps is included in the department of the nagy -- navy's budget. the navy marine corps went down. the air force up. armie, basically even. that is not a surprise. that was printed in last year's budget request.

in future years, they were already showing the air force was supposed to go up in the future. part of that is because the air where theyaling with have got all of these programs to replacew weapons the legacy weapons they have in their inventory today. to climb therting wave in the budget request. let's go to our next caller, sarah from new hampshire. sarah, you are on. caller: thank you for taking my call. is there any effort to keep down costs when we have outside contractors getting no-bid , andacts in war zones their employees make 20 times what an enlisted person makes, there seems to be no accountability or ethics involved. also, a couple days before 9/11,

donald rumsfeld said there was true -- $2 trillion missing from the defense budget, and in the days afterwards, we know the pentagon was bombed and there has been no monument lace for the people supposedly on an airplane that went into it. there seems to be really a lot of unethical behavior on the part of our leadership in the past and i do not see anything being remedied currently. work, ite there is a is started by politically and corporately connected people and their kids do not going to the war zone. our kids get sent into harms way. my family has fought in every war since the french and indian war. into the current worse. i did not see dick cheney's kids

go into iraq. let's give todd a chance to respond. ofst: there are a couple first posits. one is reform in changing the way the pentagon buys weapons and services. to be more efficient. there have been numerous efforts to acquisition reform. it is a perennial topic in washington. everyone recognizes we could do the way our military buys weapons and services, they keep trying and it is a difficult problem to solve and i do not think anyone has come up with a good solution yet. made incremental progress in some areas. there has been an initiative in the pentagon called better buying power. they try to make sure the pentagon is getting a good price for its weapons and for the services it contracts for. still shortcomings in that and it will actually take many years before we could

see the effects of that to see if what they are doing now is being more efficient. it is something congress has in taking up and i know the senate and house armed services committee's past acquisition reform legislation last year and made some changes to the system. they will probably come back this year and passmore changes. there is always more that could done but it is a difficult problem when you have got such a large and massive organization buying so many different things and often the military is buying products that nobody else makes, nobody else buys. it is unique to the military. it is hard to even get a good of what amate it -- nuclear aircraft carrier should cost. we do not have comparisons. what should the new ballmer -- --it has been 20 or 30 years bomber cost?

since we built this. new bomberuld this cost? it has been 20 or 30 years since we built this. the budget has come down significantly since we largely pulled out forces from iraq and afghanistan. in iraq and afghanistan, we typically had a ratio of about theater foror in every uniformed servicemen were in theater. about a one to one ratio. this is a new thing for the u.s. military because these are the first major protracted wars we have ever fought in our history with an all volunteer force. we did not use the draft. previous wars like the amount in korea and the world worse, we used the draft. the draft allowed you to pull and a lot of people and pay them pennies on the dollar, friendly. the pay was very low because they did not have a choice. we now have a volunteer force

where they do have a choice. you have to pay them competitive wages. do that, personnel costs are higher and it does not now make sense to bring someone in and give them good pay and thatits to do a job contracts out for a lower price. some contingency contractors are used for things like security , where they required specialized skills and we ended up paying them in some cases more than the military. security related contractors, only about 10% of contractors. the vast majority of contractors weree on the battlefield for more mundane activities like food preparation, laundry, cleaning up phases and vase maintenance activities. the majority of the contractors we use for those services were third-party nationals, not u.s. ends of the host country. but the third country.

the contractors were actually paying them at a competitive wage in their home market, a lot less than you have to pay a u.s. citizen to come work there. we actually did save a lot of money by doing that. i think the reality is whether we like the use of contractors in the battlefield or not, it is that financially, it is going to make sense. tong contractors allows you have a contracting surge and purge. you can hire people rapidly and when you do not need people bowl , you can get rid of them and do not have to keep them on the payroll in future years. it is a change in the way the military operates. up next, on the democratic line, we have richard from missouri. i was listening to the different things we're talking about. back when i was doing my service

time, everybody was drafted and they went in did two years for active and reserve time. it seemed to work out real well. this professional army, we call them mercenaries in the old times. somebody would do your killing for you. when idy was patriotic went in the army. you did your time for your country and come home and got an education or whatever they give you in benefits. as far as hospitalization, medicare for all with take care of all of that. give health care to all of god's people. host: did you have a question? caller: this thing we have setting up, we spend a billion dollars on it and now you are going to build a new one? guest: i did not catch the last part. caller: i will let you go. host: thank you so much for the call.

thank you to todd harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the center for strategic and international studies. thank you for joining us today. guest: thanks are having me. host: we will be talking to marc morial, president of the national urban league. we will discuss issues that are important to black voters. stay tuned. ♪ >> american history tv on c-span3 features programs that tell the american story. we continue our series on the 1966 the it vietnam hearings.e >> our purpose is easily defined.

of aprilltimore speech 7, 1965, president johnson did so in the following terms. our objective in the independence of southvietnam and freedom from attack. we want nothing for ourselves, only that the people of south vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way. this has been our objective since 1954. it has been pursued by three successive administrations and remains our basic objective today. >> secretary of state dean rusk gives testimony defending johnson's the at no -- johnson's vietnam policies. cycle we aretion reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed. >> c-span is a home for political junkies and a way to track the government as it happens. >> a great way for us to stay informed.

>> a lot of c-span fans on the hill. my colleagues will say, i saw you on c-span. >> so much c-span does to make sure people outside the beltway know what is going on inside it. c-span's coverage of the presidential candidates continues this week with campaign events in south carolina and nevada leading up to the south carolina gop primary and the nevada democratic caucuses on federate what if. our coverage -- on february 20. candidate speeches and your reaction to the results on c-span for c-span radio and c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is mark morial. we will be discussing resident of candidates and issues that are important to black voters. guest: good to be with you. host: what are the issues that

are important not only to the league but to black voters? guest: i think we should think about it this way. the issues that are important to all voters are important to black voters. black voters are an important part of the electorate but should not be seen as a separate part of the american electorate. african-americans face a set of problems due to history, public policy, that need what i call focused attention. what we did in this election cycle, we began almost a year ago with invitations to all candidates to join us at the national urban league conference in fort lauderdale, florida. five candidates accepted that invitation. hillary clinton, bernie sanders, martin o'malley, jeb bush and dr. ben carson joined us.

we followed that up with a questionnaire sent to all of the candidates and for your viewers who may be interested in the questionnaire and responses, they can go to nul.org and take a look. every candidate did not respond to that questionnaire. hillary clinton did. martin o'malley did. bernie sanders did. ben carson did and so did christopher christie. christie is now out of the race. what we have done is we have extended an invitation to every candidate to participate in a civil rights briefing. the idea that pre-thing is for briefing idea of that is for us to present to each candidate our agenda, our policy prescriptions. things would let to see the next president execute on should they become president and commander in chief. so far, we did the first of

these briefings with hillary clinton on tuesday in new york city and we will do the second of them today with bernie sanders here in washington, d.c. and we continue to extend a public invitation. it has gone out in writing. every candidate has it is their inbox to participate in the same type of briefing. our aim is to ensure that civil rights, social justice come and economic justice are at the center of the debate for the next president of the united states. host: why do you think it appears the democrats have been more responsive to your requests? why do you think the democrats are more responsive? guest: what is interesting to me is that until the last election, the 2012 election, republican candidates like george w. bush and john mccain always engaged with the national urban league and came to our conference even

if there were differences in public policy they came to engage. something has occurred i think within the republican party and within the republican way of thinking over the last several years. a significant disengagement. while it has been good for me on an annual basis to have a dialogue with mitch mcconnell, historically once he became speaker of the house, john boehner did not engage with us. did not accept invitations for meetings or with any dialogue. in this campaign, jeb bush and ben carson, they came and engaged. they said what they thought they needed to say and what they wanted to say and i think it is puzzling why anyone who is running today, even if you are trying to get primary votes, ultimately your aim is to become president of all of the american

people. i think engaging with historic social justice authorizations is important. organizationsice is important. 196i-5,ng rights act of extensions of 1975, 1982 and 2006 were undertaken and done inh bipartisan coalitions members of congress. the civil rights act of 1964 was undertaken and successfully passed through congress with a bipartisan coalition. we want to send the message that we don't believe that civil rights, social justice and economic justice issues should only be "democratic issues." we think they are issues for everyone, every candidate. we think every candidate should engage with us in a dialogue so we will continue to reach out throughout the election cycle as

we seek a dialogue with each candidate who is running, even if we have different -- we have disagreements, that is what american democracy is about. let's have a conversation even if we don't come to an agreement on every issue. let's have discussion. let's engage. that is what democracy is about. host: we want our callers to engage with marc morial, head of the national urban league. up next we have terry from seamy valley, california. valley, california. caller: thank you for taking my call. why thelike to ask sock caucus finds it difficult to get the point across so that change comes more quickly.

voting in a barack obama should have answered the cry eight years ago and yet it has not. it pains me to see that the struggle goes on. i feel that hillary clinton has done so much and yet bernie sanders, who has done so little, is equal in the polls. the black vote fear feels about either of these candidates. guest: i could not speak for the entire black community but i think the african american community is not monolithic. primary,08 democratic there was an active, energetic competition for the votes of the african-american community by and between barack obama and hillary clinton. traditionally in the democratic primary you have had that kind of competition. you can go all the way back to

when984 and 1988 cycles jesse jackson ran and walter mondale ran and michael dukakis ran. a vigorous competition for the votes of african-americans. i think that vigorous competition sends the message that the votes of african-americans, like the votes of any group of americans has to be earned, cannot be taken for granted. i think people read into president obama's election too many lofty things. there were those who said this one election, as significant, as historic, as earth shattering as it was, means that america has purged itself of all of the issues of the past. that was never the case and those that thought it was the case were overstating the impact of the president's election.

the president's election brought into play a very energized, organized opposition effort. it was after the election that the tea party, which was an activist movement on the right, was well organized and well financed, really in an effort to fort -- two thwart his legislative achievements. members of the senate and congress made it their cause and purpose to try to defeat him and the 2012 election. i think the president possible election is the story -- is historic and will look back and people will understand his a college mince. -- understand his of accomplishments. they will also understand and maybe america missed some opportunities here. that opportunity was to accept the idea that he was president

to unify and consolidate around the president. i think that historically prior to his election all presidents were provided with a reasonable period of a honeymoon. a reasonable time to get their agenda in place. i don't think barack obama was given that kind of honeymoon consistent with what you saw with other presidents. we have to look at this with very clear eyes and understand it was significant but maybe people read too much into it. i think when we look back the changes that he will bring about and their effects are going to be long-term and i believe they will be significantly positive. host: looking at the current democratic race between hillary clinton and bernie sanders you have the financial times saying that sanders is playing catch-up among african-americans.

he has been recently reaching out to people like al sharpton and other members of the black community. even the last caller said hillary clinton has done so much and sanders has done so little. do you think that perception-- guest: this is the reality. bernie sanders is a relatively new entrant to national political discourse. he has been a member of the house, the senate, mayor of burlington, a 30 year political career. i met him for the first time last summer. i thought to myself, this is maybe a bit unusual because although he has been on the scene and you have to say that he probably has a mostly progressive voting record. hillary clinton, no doubt, has a set of relationships from her time in the united states senate, her time as secretary of state, as first lady not only to the united states but also first lady to the state of arkansas,

long-standing relationships. and when you run for president before, you also have millions of voters who voted for you once before. that is where it starts. i think bernie sanders is working to play catch-up. i think he is working hard to get known. he has managed to attract some high-profile support and endorsements. we have something -- a competitive landscape for the votes of african-americans. we don't want on the one hand the votes of african-americans to be taken for granted. we certainly don't want on the other hand where african-americans are ignored until one month before the election when people make last-second appeals to try to say i'm your person, please vote for me, please trust me.

trust is earned. we will meet the nine leaders of civil rights organizations with senator sanders today. we will present to him our 21st century agenda for jobs and freedom. we will take time to talk about issues of police, criminal justice reform, the economy and economic justice and small business growth and development. we will talk about voting rights and mass incarceration. issues related to black women. supreme court and other executive branch and judicial branch appointments. it's going to be a full and complete conversation. that's what we had with hillary clinton. it is the same kind of conversation we want to have with bernie sanders. host: you mentioned the idea of some candidates taking black votes for granted. in the boston globe, derek jackson wrote about hillary clinton saying, clinton who

earned an estimated $1.8 million in big banks begin fees in 2013 and 2014 shamelessly counts on blacks for support while she is engaged with a system that holds back the aspirations of too many black people. he goes on, she is hoping no one remembers how husband bill put the black poor before the criminal justice firing squad and how she is in bed with the banks that stole the american dream from black homeowners. guest: if people want to talk about the criminal justice -- the crime bill of the 90's, hillary clinton did not vote for that. bernie sanders did. let's talk about who voted for what, not what someone's husband may have done. had crime bill, while it three strikes you're out provisions in it, also had the crime package at the time also had within it the provisions

that are being used by the department of justice to sue ferguson. this with atake full and complete set of facts. i think there is a consensus that the crime initiatives in the 1990's did a lot of damage. what we ought to be talking about is who can modify them? who has the political will, the leadership ability to push through the congress significant changes? who can set the climate in the country to try to impact state criminal laws? this is not just the thing about whether i can check a box and say i am for something or not for something as president of the united states. those of us who have been in leadership positions, particularly executive branch positions, know that it is not just good intentions that make

an effective president. it is good intentions and good skills. i think it is important to recognize that if you are going to talk about the crime bill, you have to talk about who voted for it and who did not. you also have to talk about things that took place in the 1990's like the anti-assault weapons ban, expansion of the brady bill, civil rights provisions that gave the justice department a stronger hand in going after violations undertaken by police departments which was somewhat utilized in the clinton years. rollback in the bush years and the obama justice department and its civil rights division have gotten aggressive in using those provisions. where do those provisions come from? if we are going to have a discussion about these issues, we have to have a discussion that has some depth and facts and not just topline talking points. host: we have callers to chime

into this conversation. let's go to derek from minnesota. you are on with marc morial of the national urban league. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i recently got married. i have a quick comment and a question. and wheny got married i was filling out the form they wanted me to make sure -- they almost forced us to put down what race we are and i refused to do it because we are all a part of the human race. at the end of the day the argument was won by us. my wife and i put human race. don't you think that this whole thing about dividing us based on our color -- i am sick of people calling us white. i am not white. african-americans? are you black?

i hear liberals saying black, african-americans. this exacerbates the issue of dividing us. we are all children of god. guest: i agree we are all children of god. we are all members of the human race but race and ethnic distinctions are part of the fabric of this country and by not talking about it we don't imagine it into nonexistence. -- at thetution constitutional convention treated african-americans as 3/5 of a -- three fits of a person, in effect sanctioned slavery. the congress in the courts of the late 1800s sanctioned a system of segregation based exclusively on race. i believe that to get beyond it if someone does not want to put anything down on a form so be it but i think it is important if

we are going to confront the issue of race and the issue of racial disparities and inequalities in this country, we need to have a sense of how public policies, how the conditions that exist affect people based on race. we ought to be able to have an intelligent if sometimes painful conversation about race and racial distinctions in america. we all have a goal and the goal is a level playing field. and america that i believe is like a gumbo or a rainbow. we are all one but we have distinctiveness. should an italian-american discontinue being proud of their heritage as an italian-american? should a jamaican american? a polish-american? it is the same for those of us with african distant. we are fully americans but most americans have a dual identity.

that is the richness, the beauty , the fabric of the united states being distinct from other nations where they may seek to be monolithic from a religious standpoint, monolithic am a racial or identity standpoint. i would like to thank what unifies us is our values. what unifies us is the values of liberty, justice, and economic opportunity for all regardless of one's background. we are on a journey and i think at the pivot point in this election, very important civil rights, social justice, and economic justice issues. when candidates talk about immigration, that is a social justice issue. when candidates talk about the minimum wage, it is an economic justice issue. we talk about mass incarceration, it is a social and economic justice issue. we talk about economic growth,

it is about making sure that all communities benefit from that economic growth. that is an economic justice issue, a fairness issue. if we want to look at this, i think it is not as simple as it might seem in terms of how we confront and deal with the issue of race in america today. host: up next on our republican line we have walter from butler, indiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. guest: how is that basketball team this year at butler? caller: i am busy watching the snow drop down. just got back from the dominican republic and i'm am ready to go back for a couple of days. i am out here in the rust belt. i am born and raised new york city. experienced a lot of different things with races of all kinds. live together, work together. positive and negatives.

i always found it interesting where election time mostly all the immigrants come to the -- mostly all the democrats come to the lack leaders and tell him they will throw crumbs their way and black leaders go back to the constituents and say this is what they are going to promise us. it seems like you folks have always been disappointed because you always get the short end of the stick. i have a suggestion and this is not being sarcastic or flippant in my remark. , think the bottom line is since we are all americans and we have all had disparities -- my grandmother came through ellis island and she had the newspaper sign that no blacks or irish need apply. it was a terrible mistake by the white man bringing the black man over here. 200 years later i think the best thing to do with my recommendation to you and your leaders to tell the black people is we cannot depend on the government, we cannot depend on big brother, we cannot depend on

the people that sit in the white ivory towers to throw us crumbs. it's time to pull our pants up, put on our boots, stop having babies out of marriage. when the mom says to the young kid that the kid is going out, the mom grabs a wooden spoon like she did for me and tell me to stand up straight. were fathers are not leaving the mothers because that's how they get their extra food stamps and that. that has to be changed because it's ridiculous when i family is struggling that the government says the man cannot be in the house because that is extra income and all of that stuff. host: i want to give mark a chance to respond. guest: i think walter probably, there are things walter is not aware of. the idea that african americans are somehow hyper dependent on the government is a misnomer and a caricature created by certain political voices. people,ople, like all

are hard-working americans getting up every day trying to raise children and families. because people might see some things in the media, i hope they don't think that is a true accurate and complete reflection of who black america is. black america seeks not to be dependent on the government but the government is the collective and the government owes a fair responsibility to guarantee economic opportunity. to guarantee a level playing field to all americans. i believe the government in a owes anocratic society obligation to create a safety net for the most vulnerable americans. also tools to help people get on their feet. what i will reject is this stereotype that black community is dominated by out of wedlock births. the black community is dominated

by people who sit home each day. it is a falsehood and it is actively promoted as a caricature. african-americans don't take away the work that anyone has done to build this country, but african-americans help through the times of slavery in the 1800s when the country was dominantly rural. we were the backbone, the forced labor that built the cotton economy, the sugarcane economy, the tobacco economies of the south and by that created wealth not for ourselves but certainly for others. i think it is important, if you want to have a discussion, you have to make sure that stereotypes don't govern. what any american is entitled to from its own government is guaranteed fairness, equal protection of the laws. the constitution says it, that is an american value and we will

hold government accountable to provide that and it sure that others do the same. host: we are talking about issues in this presidential election that are important to black voters. we are talking with marc morial and up next we have wanda from chattanooga, tennessee. caller: good morning. i was really trying to understand how long had it been since people were put in jail -- i don't know if our people are put in jail but i know most people around here where i live at a lot of people are being put in jail and charged for being in jail, being an absent parent. some men was some women. -- some men, some women. we can start finding some other who arethin our race absent parents. i was wondering, could they go all the way back through their journey and put those people in

jail for child neglect and not paying child support or being involved in their child's life. host: we have a few seconds left. guest: the response would be that one reason criminal justice reform is so important, what she really highlights is in many instances people being incarcerated for minimal, nonviolent offenses and as a result they lose their livelihood. as a result they cannot support their families and support their children. which is why a more compassionate system when dealing with nonviolent offenders, people who may be involved in possession of small amounts of marijuana or other types of narcotics, should be given an opportunity to avoid incarceration so that they can stay with their families so that they can continue to support their families.

that is one of the dynamics we have taken over the last 20 years, many things that were never ever led to jail and because of this policy of get tough on crime we made many offenses that historically did not lead to jail, we made them offenses that required a mandatory minimum sentence in jail and took away from the judge the discretion to try to do things that might be better than jail to help a person keep families together and ensure livelihood. host: marc morial, president and ceo of the national urban league. thank you for joining us. guest: follow us on twitter and visit us online. nul.org. thanks for having me. host: we will go back to our caller discussion about the battle between apple and the fbi. his security more important or privacy? we will kick things off with

looking at a conversation that we had with the washington post about the issue. [video clip] >> what exactly is the government asking apple to do? >> thanks for having me. the government went to court in to force apple to softwarely create new for a particular iphone that was used by one of the san bernadino shooters. software that would essentially override one of the features on the iphone to let the fbi have a chance to try to crack a password that was protecting the contents of the phone that were encrypted. the fbi basically wants the government basically wants apple to build custom design software

that will get around the feature on the iphone that wipes all the data off the phone after you try 10 times and failed to enter the correct passcode. >> why can't the fbi do this themselves and can apple do this technologically? >> according to the experts, apple can technically do this because it is a question of writing new software. when it comes to software, you can basically do anything. softwared be replacing currently on that iphone. the question for them is, is it a good idea, do they want to do it. apple is making the argument that to force them to do this would be to force them to drastically weaken security of

this phone and by extension users of their iphone because they feel that if they were to make this concession to the government for this phone, they would be asked to do it for other phones. where would it stop? >> why can't the fbi do with themselves? software apple and have written. it is proprietary. it might be possible but it would be more difficult for the fbi to do it and they might even unless likely to succeed it were the writers of the software themselves. >> ceo tim cook put out a statement saying the implications of the government asked demands are chilling. if the government can use the easierts act to make it to a mock your iphone it would have the power to reach into anyone's device.

if they unlock this one phone, does it then allow the government to put at risk all of apple's consumers? >> that is apple's legal argument and it is one that will be tested in court. the government obtained the court order based on a law that dates back to the colonial era, 1789 call the all writs act which has been interpreted as an authority to ask someone to do things where there is no written statute to explicitly direct them to do things. it has kind of been a catchall statute of sorts. it has been used previously a number of times to authorize companies including apple to do

things such as unlock phones. it is just that this is the first time that we know of where it has been made public that the government is asking apple to write software, special software to override a certain feature on the iphone in order to enable the government to crack the password. that is the novel point. >> finally, does this set a precedent or would the fbi or other national security agencies have to continue on a case-by-case basis asking companies to open phones or other devices? technical question any legal precedent. on the technical side the government is saying we are just asking for help with this one phone. we are not asking you to write

universal software that will apply to all phones and we are not even asking you to unlock the phone itself. we are asking you to help us override this feature so that we can have a fair crack at trying to break the password. that, ifny contends you are asking us to design the software for one phone, you will be asking us to design software for other phones and once you design the software it is a trivial matter to just substitute in a new serial number for each phone and you will be asking us to do this for a lot of other phones. that will weaken the overall security of the regime. , it would precedent depend on what happens in the courts. this is an issue in san bernadino limited to that court. it likely will get appealed

whichever way it goes. it could go up to the appeals court. if there is another ruling in another district elsewhere in the country, which is at odds with this one, you could see it possibly go to supreme court. here.f issues >> ellen nakashima, national security reporter with the washington post. host: we are returning to our discussion about apple's bow to to cracke fbi's demand an iphone link to the san bernadino attacks. we want to hear from callers on the republican line (202) 748-8001. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 outside of the united states you can call in at (202) 748-8003. we want to hear from you as to what you think is more important, privacy or security.

we will kick things off with our caller on the democratic line. sheila from philadelphia. what do you think is more important? caller: i think privacy is more important. however, we live in an age where we don't have privacy anymore. if i call into city hall in philadelphia, i found out a few years back city hall was taking our number and information and selling it to outside buyers. when you get a new phone, that phone company, though they deny it, your phone number is given out to multiple people. they sell the phones. i worked as a telemarketer and we bought phone numbers from certain phone companies. there is no such thing as privacy. however, we do need the illusion of privacy. 9/11 bush after

changed the constitution. police were allowed to pick up anybody and hold them. they were not allowed to call a lawyer or anything. host: you say you think privacy is more important. in this case, do you think apple is right to resist the government's request? caller: i think apple is absolutely right. i think it will come back to bite the people in the backside. host: thank you very much for your call. e alsot we have howi from philadelphia. do you think that privacy trumps security in this case? caller: i think privacy is more important. i agree with my fellow philadelphian. although, the last gentleman that was there, he seems to not want to talk about the constitution or the fourth amendment.

law enforcement, it is unbelievable. nobody in my party wants to address the fourth amendment or the 14th amendment. it seems like every time somebody mentions reagan in a good way it's like they are getting paid thousands of dollars. i'm going to expose everybody from our media to everybody on television -- host: are you talking about the privacy battle now? caller: all over the place. all of these people do not like us. we need to form a common people union. host: we will go on to our next question -- our next caller in this discussion of privacy versus security and the battle between apple and the fbi. on our independent line we have john from gresham, oregon. what do you think is more important, privacy or security? caller: in the case of this apple iphone issue, the privacy

issue is more important in order to keep the government from just hacking into anybody's phone at any time. i would wonder why could not the fbi turn over that phone to apple, let apple open the access to that one phone, create the software to access that one phone, return the phone to the fbi and destroy the software that open the phone? giving the fbi access to everything on the phone and that phone only and not allowing the fbi to have access to the software. host: what do you think about apple's argument that once they do this that exposes everyone possible to being hacked in the same way? do you have a concern about that? caller: i am very concerned about that. that's why i would hope apple could just open that one phone, return that phone to the fbi, let the fbi have at it and apple

maintains the ownership of the software or actually ones that phone is open just troy the software that opened that phone. the fbi or any government entity for that unlimited and unrestricted access to the software that allows them to sneak and peek so to speak. i thank you so much for your conversation on this matter. host: thanks for calling. up next we have michael on our democratic line calling from here in washington, d.c. a security more important than privacy? caller: i think privacy is much more important. i recently had an experience with apple. i bought a laptop about a week

ago and i put my password and everything in, did everything at the store. home itook the laptop tried to go into my laptop using the same password and it would not let me in. i tried a couple of times and one time and let me in and then it did not let me in again. just letting the end when it wanted using the same password. i decided to take that laptop back to the store, brand-new laptop. i said i'm having issues, i try to get in some time using my password -- host: if you are having that much trouble cracking your own apple products, what about the government having trouble getting into this phone they know is connected to a terrorist attack? do you think they should be

entitled to help getting to that the same way you need to get your information? caller: this was my own personal laptop. i had just bought it and use my password. the actual equipment was not working right. thank you, michael for that. up next on our republican line we have bruce from chicago, illinois. what do you think is most important? security or privacy? caller: in light of what the government has done to people with this irs thing with lois lerner and so forth, privacy is more important. i find it ironic the government can sit here and not get into apple and crack their password but we sit here and people hack into our software or into the

government, into private industry, banks all the time. you would think with all of the resources the government has they could block people out of our stuff. it points out the ludicrously of hillary clinton having her own server and expecting to be secure. trust the government's people had in the government. my dad had a saying, it takes a lifetime to build a reputation and 10 minutes to pull it apart. you. host: on the issue about how difficult it would be to break into -- to create a backdoor into this program that the government is asking for, in this piece from usa today experts said that creating software to do that for this one

phone would not be difficult for apple to do but it could open a pandora's box. the fbi cannot do it themselves the article states because to put new software on an apple device it must be digitally signed with a special key that only apple knows and without that key the phone would reject the software. it needs apple's help to do that. about talking to you whether privacy or security is more important when the government wants to do an investigation into the terrorist attacks from san bernadino. james from california come a democrat. what do you think is important? caller: thank you for taking my call. feel security is more important than privacy but the question is, at what cost. host: what do you think the cost might be?

an erosion of our first amendment rights. i think the question is oversimplified because it is almost like the real question is why aren't our first amendment rights being honored by government as it exists. the other issue i have is that this huge social costs throughout the economy not being addressed. perhaps of law enforcement had that are resources -- had better resources this would not be an issue. stranglehold by capitalists on the production and profits are being maximized. social costs are not being considered.

they're allowed to get these profits and the social costs which unfortunately have to be administered through taxes which they have been able to finagle .ut of it host: thank you for your thoughts. up next we have ann from louisville, kentucky. right inink apple is this security battle or do you think the fbi should be allowed access to this phone? caller: i think apple is right about this. i also think the question is more about the government coming in and compelling a business, a privately owned business to do something they don't want to do so they are forcing them to do it. while i am on the phone, i would like to make a point that i've tried to call in earlier about the fella from the urban league. when the guy called in about the

perception about the black family and being on food stamps and welfare. i want to point out one thing i've noticed and i want to ask you if you have noticed this yourself, that whenever there is a website or tv commercial that is promoting some sort of welfare or social program, they always show black families and black children. i went to a particular website -- host: i appreciate you talking on this issue but we will keep this conversation focused on the security question between apple and the fbi. up next we have sue from florence, massachusetts. what do you think is more important? caller: i started to say security because i realized i work in i.t. and what they are asking apple to do is breach security.

you cannot have security without privacy. i am older, in my 60's. i work in i.t.. i do not trust the government. i worked for the government for a while and you realize they do not have secure practices and they don't have good protocols. if i was apple or one of those businesses i would not let them force me to do this. i think the government sometimes damages some of the very fine things we have in the world because the government goes in and thinks they can reproduce it. i am in favor of apple standing its ground. i hope all the i.t. companies do. when the government asked people to stop making cars, businesses and start making munitions, they did. this does not raise to that level. lots of other avenues for the fbi, they just have to do their work. host: since you do work in i.t., do you think there is a way to

allow access to a single phone without opening a pandora's box that would -- caller: not at all. all of those phones are produced with the same software and same model number. i think the government does not know what it is asking for and i think -- president obama formed a task force for people of high-level i.t. skills to come in and advise young folks to work for the obama presidency to advise him on what to do about the state of the government systems and what the government should be able to do. i honor him for that because as a republican it's like, it is actually true, the government has low performance levels in this area. i hope businesses keep doing what they do. host: thank you for your call. up next we have beverly from st. petersburg, florida. a democrat. what do you think is more important?

caller: i think privacy is more important. i was surprised google came out in support of apple. i see that apple has -- i think if they acquiesce to what the government wants at this point it is not a matter of apple -- apple does not have -- it is my understanding apple cannot access this information without creating a backdoor and if they create that backdoor there is no going back. just like raising taxes. they don't ever seem to reduce them. if we go that route, and i don't understand why the government is now making this public, it is a frightening thing in my opinion. host: can i ask you, are you concerned that given the high security of things like iphones that this will hamper investigations by the fbi when these terror attacks take place?

caller: no i am not. i am not convinced it hampered them in the past. i think they have a phone and they would like to unlock it. 10 times and it wipes it out. google at one time took your photos, would put them online. they are not as concerned with privacy as apple has been because they are going after a different to mcgrath and. -- a different demographic. i think apple's demographic is older and i think those folks, like myself, are more concerned with privacy. thank you, beverly. up next we have bill, a republican calling in from leesburg, georgia. what do you think is more important in this battle between apple and the fbi? privacy or security? caller: security.

i am listening to all of this. i just listened to the lady talking. ie has a point in a way but wonder if this happened to tim cook's people, would he already be britain the phone open -- be breaking the phone open. i think there is a way to keep this information between cook and the fbi. i have been listening to these folks. the guy from oregon has a point. break it open, kill the software. think of the people they shot up and think of the security we may get, the information from that cell phone to prevent further terrorist activity in this country. to me, this was nothing more than a test run. they were testing the waters here.

we all know they are going to hit again, where and host: are you concerned with the assertion that if the fbi allows this back your, if apple allows this backdoor, that potentially compromises everyone security, not just this particular phone but the entire platform? are you worried about your privacy? caller: i have too many telemarketers with my cell phone numbers and my wife's cell phone numbers. there is no such thing as real security. andcan google my address see my whole house from a satellite. if somebody wanted to come and do harm to my family, all they have to do is google my address and look at my lot, figure out how to get there. i'm not too concerned about security. there is a way to do this.

keep it between apple and the fbi. rate it open, let them get the information, kill the software and i suspect the software already exists. host: we are talking about the dispute between apple and the unlocking of a phone that was connected to the san bernadino attacks. we are talking to viewers about whether they are more concerned about privacy or security. up next we have derek from columbus, ohio. his apple right or the fbi? caller: the fbi is right and correct on this one. i rarely agree with most of the republican callers but the gentleman from georgia just now, i agree with. a have to look at this as single episode where americans were killed. the fbi, through law, has

requested apple to give up the information on that particular phone. in the two months they have tried to do this whatever terrorist group or organization has had plenty of time to scatter, to get out of the way. i think through the method of law, with warrants, the fbi has every right to see what's in that information. i respect privacy but there has been no real sense of privacy in this country since j edgar hoover. anybody who has nothing to be afraid of should have no reason that lawful law enforcement should be able to access their e-mail, their telephones or because if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide. host: do you think that the measure should be based -- you mentioned that nowadays a lot more information about people is

available. do you think the changes in that technology is the reason why privacy expectations should be reduced? caller: i believe that. technology is fluid. it continues to grow and change. since the invention of the so-called cloud nothing is impossible for anybody to break at this point. but with the threat of american lives on the line i think that law enforcement, the fbi, should have easy access to follow up on leads, to find out if there is an organization, to find out who these people talk to. whether they will be a real threat. this is just the tip of the iceberg. there will be other terrorist things. the fbi needs these tools to be able to follow that. call.thank you for your up next we are going to larry inclement and, new jersey on our independent line. what do you think is more important?

>> that is the end of the show. join us back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m., thank you for joining us. ♪ >>