trust on wall street continues to wane since the 2008 financial crisis. he will also look at an effort by several top ceos to overhaul corporate governance. ♪ good morning, it is tuesday, august 9, 2016. primary day for congressional candidates in four states, connecticut, minnesota, vermont, and wisconsin. where house -- speaker paul ryan is facing a challenge of a conservative businessman with the backing of some anti-establishment groups. we begin today getting a reaction from the economic plan donald trump laid out yesterday at a speech in detroit. as we take you to the details of that plan and the response it has received in the press and among policymakers, we want to see her -- we want to hear your thoughts. we are dividing our phone lines by income brackets.

for those making under $50,000, the phone number is call (202) 748-8000. 50,000 to $100,000, call (202) 748-8001. over $100,000 a year, call (202) 748-8002. catch up with us on twitter, ispanwj, on facebook, it facebook.com/c-span. morning,headlines this the speech the donald trump gave yesterday in detroit, here is the "washington post," trump seeks rebound with tax plan. we written echoes house gop, remains light on detail. write fromt of the the "new york times." chosen to was clearly

appeal to working-class americans who are at the center of his political strategy. it offered a broad view of what the economic agenda of what president trump would look like. tax policies that track closely with what republicans in congress have advocated, including deep tax cuts for the wealthy and a light touch for regulation. a much more willingness to disrupt long-standing trade agreements and international economic relationships in hopes of reducing the trade deficit. we are slowing up our phone lines by income brackets this morning. we will start by showing you what donald trump had is that yesterday when it came to income taxes. [video clip] donald trump: tax implication will be a major feature -- tax simplification will be a major feature of the plan. [applause] trump: our current tax code is so burdensome and so 9 billionat we waste hours a year in tax code compliance.

my plan will reduce the current number of brackets from seven to three, and dramatically streamline the process. [applause] donald trump: we will work with house republicans on this plan, using the same brackets they proposed. 12%, 25%, and 33%. workers, theiran tax rate will be zero. comparison's sake, here is what hillary clinton's tax plan is, courtesy of the "wall street journal." she wants to raise rates on higher income households, including an effective 30% minimum on households making at a 4% $2 million a year and surtax on income over $5 million. it would raise the estate tax rates. we go through other comparisons between donald trump's plan, and

what hillary clinton has said throughout this campaign. we want to hear from you. if you make under $50,000 a year, call (202) 748-8000. if you make $50,000 a year to $100,000 a year, call (202) 748-8001. if you make over $100,000 a year, call (202) 748-8002. marianne is up first on those between $50,000 and $100,000 a year. caller: hi. i just wanted to say that i like his tax plan very much. and hillary clinton said herself that she is going to raise taxes on the middle class. that is going to wipe out the middle class, and the rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to get poorer. and they are going to be sorry if they vote for her. host: what do you like about his tax plan? did you watch the speech yesterday? caller: yes, i did.

i like it very much. i think he is getting back on track. we are only all human. i'm the same way he is. if somebody says something to me that i don't like, i blast them. host: what do you mean by back on track? caller: yeah, ok. i like his plan because i think it would work. americait will work for , i think it would help the economy. i don't think her plan would help the economy at all. it would just be more of the same. the washington insiders. host: let's go to lance in melbourne, for those who make over $100,000 a year. caller: he's a snake oil salesman. it's republican nonsense.

you're going in and out, give us a call back. let's go to ralph in standish, maine on the line for people who make under $50,000 a year. caller: yes. i think his plan is the best thing for the country. i'm a disabled veteran, i don't make as much money as i would like to make. time-limited. -- and i am limited. i will vote for him. i think he is the best candidate we have. thank you, and have a great day. host: a few other components of anald trump's tax plan -- reduction of taxes and the streamlining of deductions is a key point that he laid out yesterday. reducing the business income tax to 15% was one of the key components that he talked about. also the limitation of the inheritance tax, renegotiation of nafta, and stopping the tpp.

and a moratorium on new agency regulations, cutting regulations was a key part of that plan that he talked about yesterday. we will show you more about that plan as we go through the first 45 minutes of "washington journal," this morning. we want to hear from you. did you watch the speech? what did you think of it? wayne is on the line next on the line for those whom it between $50,000 and $100,000 a year. trump didthink donald upasterful job of building the economic opportunities of detroit. a lot of people have put down the river be failing -- down detroit to be failing. i look at a 35% corporate tax rate being reduced to 15%, that's a drastic reduction. reduce -- it if you

increase the gross domestic product, you can cut the tax rate of 15% and you'll notice donald trump's plan starts first with building the economic growth of the country, he doesn't start first like hillary and my infrastructure things that do not generate return value. they just increase the cost of the taxes. of donalduch in favor trump's tax plan. i think it has a good reason to be very successful. host: on that info structure part, donald trump did say he would support twice the size of infrastructure spending that has been advocated by hillary clinton. he would find is that with federal info structure bonds. bonds.astructure does that bother you? caller: no, there has to be

continued growth and development. the other side of the corn, every time you build a road, that doesn't add any value to our economy. just creates a nice road for businesses. it's necessary, but it does not increase value like producing a product to be resold to the public. host: duane also talked about business taxes, that is the subject of the financial times headline about donald trump's speech yesterday. levies ons to have countries in tax revolution. here's what donald trump said he would do on the issues of business taxes. [video clip] plan, --: under my plan, noump: under my american company would pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. [applause] words, wemp: in other are reducing your taxes from 35%

to 15%. [applause] donald trump: thank you. thank you. small businesses will benefit the most from this plan. hillary clinton's plan will require small businesses to pay as much as three times more in taxes than what i'm proposing. enter onerous regulations will put them totally out of business, and you won't be able to start. you cannot ever start a small business under the tremendous regulatory burden that you have today in our country. host: that was donald trump yesterday in detroit, laying out his economic plan. his economic vision. that was his speech, with details that we will go through this morning. your thoughts --

what you liked about it, what you didn't like about it. we split up our phone lines on income brackets. on the line for those who make than $50,000 a year. esther is waiting in indianapolis. caller: i'm not a trump supporter. however, from his speech, i did like the fact that he realizes we are sending american jobs overseas. and he would plan to do something about it. i have noticed that no other news program has even mentioned that fact. i hope that we can do something about it. america needs our jobs. thank you. host: kevin is in brooklyn, new who, on the line for those make under $50,000 a year. caller: good morning. i'm not really ready for donald trump, i'm not ready to support him.

plane same time, his tax do sound right. it makes no sense even rebelling. thank you. host: you liked what he had to say, but you are not ready to support him? caller: i'm not ready to support him, but happen to know he's not getting a chance to get anywhere, so it makes no sense even revealing this plan. that would be all. thanks a lot. host: here's what the "wall street journal," had to say about doldrums economic vision that he laid out yesterday. the plan mr. trump laid out at the detroit economic club is his most detailed so far, and marks a step forward on regular taxes and energy. host: the end the editorial by saying one economic speech will not persuade americans who have doubts about donald trump.

you'll need to carry the economic growth seem every day from here to november. we want to hear from steve in gaithersburg, maryland on the line for those who make between $50,000 and $100,000 a year. good morning, steve. caller: good morning. i see this as double down on trickle down. that with this speech does, although it was a nice speech, it essentially is taking the policy of steve ballmer and eric out theand calling reagan policy and adding different percentages to it. host: hillary clinton using that same term you did -- saying yesterday, it is basically just repackage trickle-down economics. her campaign releasing an ad about donald trump's economic plan. here's a bit from that. [video clip]

♪ >> this analysis that moody's has out says donald trump's economics policies would cause the economy to be significant weaker, cause a lengthy recession, have 3.5 million fewer jobs. wages too high, we are not quite be able to compete against the world. i am the king of debt, i do love debt. i love debt, i love playing with it. i would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal. >> you brought in foreign workers instead of hiring americans, and your companies manufacture clothing in china and mexico. donald trump: we would do my tax plan, it would be great. we will have a dynamic economy again. they talk about like i'm giving a tax increase for the wealthy. they are still going to be paying less than they are now.

>> the biggest beneficiaries of the .1% when it comes to raw dollars that will be saved. >> your proposed tax cut would add $10 trillion to the nation's debt. host: here are some of the response from a few of the folks follow us on twitter, @cspanwj if you want to join the covers asian. smiley rights in any republican who have given that economic speech that trump gave yesterday. breaksr how all the tax he is proposing are going to help pay down the debt. if you watch the speech, we want to hear your reaction to the plans he proposed yesterday as we take you through the various parts of that plan. orange, new jersey on the line over $100,000 a year.

caller: i agree with a couple of other callers with this being revamped trickle-down economics. it takes only a few minutes of the $2gation to realize trillion that american corporations are sitting on, we don't have problem in this country of slow growth for corporations. we have a problem in this country of slow distribution to the majority of the citizens. coming into office and lowering the amount of these corporations have to contribute to our society isn't going to be something that is beneficial to the society. thank you. host: all right, let's go to laura in washington, d.c. on the line for those who make under $50,000 a year. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i don't believe trump is

telling the truth. i think he is doing it to get the presidency. once he gets in there, he's going to change his mind. the only changes his mind, he's going to do this, do that, and then he will switch out and say i'm not going to do this or that. i don't believe he's going to do what he says he is going to do. host: why don't you believe him, laura? caller: because he endorsed paul ryan, then he changed his mind and said he's not going to endorse him. i don't know to believe him or not. he is wishy-washy. he says one thing and does something different. host: are you talking about paul ryan's primary that he is facing today? the originally retweeting something from paul ryan's opponents, but he did come out and endorsed paul ryan in that primary that is taking place in wisconsin today. caller: i know, but he said he wasn't going to do it at first. he is wishy-washy, and they said

he was going to do it. i don't believe him. he is kind of wishy-washy. host: all right. we will go to curtis waiting in richmond, virginia on the line for those who make over $100,000 a year. caller: good morning, c-span. great programming. i wanted dad for a lot of those that arethis morning being duped by this reaganesque trickle-down strategy. we are getting smarter. in the 1960's, the business rate was 91%. now we're looking at billionaires, we have more billionaires in this country than anywhere in this world. i would rather be a billionaire or a millionaire in a rich country, then a billionaire or millionaire in a poor country. office, he got into cut that totally away with this trickle down syndrome. and look what has happened?

instead of investing back into this country with the money these billionaires and especially multinational companies should be paying, they are investing in offshore banks. get time for america to smart. thanks, c-span. i've heard a lot of smart listeners come on today. this plan with donald trump, is not going to work. it's the same old thing. have a great day. host: if you other components of the plan laid out in the "wall street journal," on childcare. to reducemp plans childcare costs by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes. this is the plan he is developing with his daughter and that he will release later. hillary clinton on childcare has proposed limiting childcare costs to 10% of a family's income and guaranteeing paid leave for up to 12 weeks. on the issue of social security, donald trump has promised to maintain current benefit levels and criticize republicans passed

proposals to address looming across-the-board cuts by reducing benefits. hillary clinton on social security has supported benefit increases for poor retirees and single women, while swearing off any benefit cuts. there's the side-by-side comparison from the "wall street journal." we want to hear which parts you wanted to hear most about, and which parts resonated with you. tom is in plantation, florida on the line for those who make between $50,000 and $100,000 a year. tom, good morning. caller: good morning. i really stumped at some of the reaction to donald trump and his plans. americans claim they want to get rid of all the business insiders , political insiders, in washington. donald trump is the one person who can do that. but i think the biggest indictment of democratic party, as far as economics, is the 59.9% unemployment rate of

young, black men in the united states. they say they want to do something about it, why haven't they already done something about it? what is this we are going to do something about it after eight years? is the worstation it has ever been in the united states. ever. with ge, they said the relationship between business and government is the worst it has ever been, and he used to be on president obama's board of economic advisers. stunned at the claims that people want, and the fact that donald trump can fulfill those claims -- they say that the $500 billion trade deficit is something they hate. donald trump will actually do something about that. what do you think is

turning people off from him? he is saying these things that you believe people want to hear. what do thing turns people off? caller: it's the hot button issues that the democratic party has successfully cause people to change their thinking in a way -- they havengless meaningless hot button issues. host: including what issues? men are being incarcerated, for instance. that's a hot button issue with the democrat. that's the end of the story. the beginning of the story is there is no economic opportunity for black men in the united states. that is what the republicans will take care of. i'm really mystified at how these hot button issues that the democrats are able to come up with an throw people completely for the need of business formation and opportunity for all people in the united states.

and you know what? i'm not even sure the democrats want to solve the issues of black people in the united states. because if they did, the black people wouldn't be dependent on them anymore, and they might start listening to republicans. i really wonder if the democrats really are interested in solving these problems. host: that is tom in plantation, florida. as we said, another key part of donald trump's speech yesterday involve the issue of cutting regulations and cutting red tape, trying to find regulations that no longer need to be on the books. here's a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] donald trump: upon taking office, i will issue a temporary moratorium on new agency regulations. [applause] donald trump: by running mate, mike pence -- by the way, a great guy. [applause] signed a similar order when it came, and when he

worked so hard in indiana, as its governor. this will give our american companies the certainty they need to reinvest in our communities. get cash off of the sidelines, start hiring new jobs and expanding their businesses. so important. that is what it's about. [applause] donald trump: i will also immediately cancel all illegal and overreaching executive orders. in the information that the trump campaign put out yesterday, he talked about some of these specific regulations and executive actions that he would target in that process, including the presidents climate action plan. he talks about canceling the paris climate agreement that was agreed to the last year. he talks about obamacare,

revealing and replacing obamacare. some of those mentioned in the paperwork that the trump campaign put out after the speech yesterday. let's go to arizona, on the line for those who make under $50,000 -- on the line for those who make between $50,000 and $100,000 a year. caller: good morning, world. you have a hell of a good program. ofase allow me a whole bunch minutes. this is all about history. i love history. host: we don't have a whole bunch of minutes. caller: let me get right down to it. republican and business situations always crash the economy. democrats come in and try and save the economy. but they are not given any leverage because we have bought off governments, and it started with the colonization of this country, how informed on slavery and on stolen land. -- how it formed on slavery and stolen land.

i'm being truthful, they can't have slavery here anymore, because people are pushing back. the problem is we ship all of our jobs under the auspices of businesses that have to be making a whole bunch of money so they can for their lifestyle, and they can compare their fancy stuff with all the rest of the foreign stuff people. that are very poor in many cases. host: i know you: a lot of the "washington journal," would you do in arizona -- i know you call in a lot on "washington journal," what do you do in arizona? caller: i work -- i'm retired from u.s. steel. 38 years of after work school, they trusted me with a $288 million new goldmine is a startup engineer. i'm not an engineer, but i have common sense to keep going to school. the reason i kept going to school is because some person

from europe told me that i couldn't work at what i was good at, because the people -- i will be truthful, there were white and i was a mexican-american. they wouldn't accept me because they would like somebody being their boss. my tests that i took at the university of arizona was about production management, ok? i like progress, but i also like to correct things. and we cannot correct things under republican ministrations, i will be truthful with you. the reason we cannot is because all they think of is money. and they can get money how they built this country. but you cannot maintain this country the way they operate. because they think -- host: genius robert, thank you for calling in. we know you will: again, thank you for calling.

terrance on the line for those who make under $50,000 a year. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: today or yesterday, rather, we got a trump who stuck by the books. who read from a prompter. but what to say tomorrow or weeks down, we're not what have this wild trump who says many different things. at this point, his word is not good. it's not valid. that is the true problem with what's going on right now. host: for you, terrance, it's a stability issue? did you like what you heard yesterday? you just don't trust it will be what he's going to say tomorrow? caller: first thing, i didn't like it. but at this point, whatever he says is no longer valid. that's the problem. host: that is terrance in connecticut. of the you some context

political environment yesterday, in which donald trump gave the speech. some well-known republicans coming out yesterday to say that they did not support donald trump. senator susan collins from maine wrote a column that appeared on the "washington post," website that is in today's paper, on their editorial page, saying her reasons why she cannot support donald trump. she says with the passage of time, i've been increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cool comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. if he was -- host: senator collins said three incidents in particular stuck out her. the first was his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, the second was his imputed resistance -- repeated

insistence that a federal judge case not rule fairly in a involving trump university because of his mexican heritage, and the third was his criticism of the grieving parents of the army captain -- the muslim army captain that was killed in iraq. ae says that some will say is republican, have an obligation to support my party's nominee. hard aboutt long and that. being a republican is part of what defines me as a person. host: if you want to read her full comments, it's in today's "washington post." a group of 58 former national security officials, all who served republicans, came out yesterday to say the donald trump would be the most reckless president when it came to

national security. the former national security officials didn't include any former secretaries of state, it carried the signatures of former secretaries of homeland security. michael hayden, a former director of the cia and national security agency, and john director offormer national intelligence and deputy secretary of state. donald trump's campaign directly responded to that letter, in the names on this letter are the ones the american people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame or making the world such a dangerous place. they are nothing more than the failed washington elite looking to hold onto their power, and it is time they are held accountable for their actions. there are some of the republican politics taking place yesterday amid donald trump trying to

focus on economic message. we want to hear your thoughts on that economic message. mark is in fayetteville, north carolina on the line for those who make under $50,000 a year. caller: good morning. ast he said yesterday as far his economic deals here, to me, doesn't resonate. i'm a disabled veteran. ,'m not support of donald trump for my life on the line for my country. john mccain, to me, and one point in time, i won't say hero, but that has been a hero by him spinning time to prison. overseas. him spinningthan time in prison in the united states. medalim to take that and say that these is witty to get a purple heart, this is respectful. as for his economic thing, that is money for money.

he doesn't care about the average person. he doesn't care about the united states. this is a publicity stunt for him. he doesn't want that job. he's done everything he can to get out of it. and to save some kind of face. it's not going to hurt him, but can hurt our people. clinton, sheary will take the responsibility. i was a was a threat to our national security, but it was dangerous. say it was a threat to our national security, but it was dangerous. host: are you supporting hillary clinton? caller: between the two, and supporting hillary clinton. she has the best collocations for the job, she has the best resume for the job. he does not care about us. i would vote for hillary. host: carrie is waiting in arlington, virginia just across the potomac river, on the line for those who make between $50,000 and $100,000 a year. caller: good morning.

i am constantly stunned at how many people run on so few data. i know senator collins, i worked around capital for about a decade. where i've been focusing in on two areas we do not hear discussed. one is with wall street, with regards to how there really are two sets of rules and procedures that wall street runs under, which explained why they don't go to jail, ever. the second is intellectual property, and how these billionaires in silicon valley have been forming recently. machination 98, al gore and bill clinton released a domain -- 1998, al gore and bill clinton released a domain naming system that darpa had control over. 1998, the academics who took the electoral property testified to congress that this would become a trillion dollar

business. there, and control of that is going to switzerland, according to the grandfather of the internet. it's going to switzerland right before the election. these are two very important issues. i actually former journalist, i focus now intellectual property, and i write about it in the center for copyright integrity. i found the documents that show that bernie made off told the truth when they said they knew. 1963 is the year i document to the first time he sold no product. if i do these candidates do not address the fact that the bernie , it'sff -- the made off an ongoing situation that the fcc will charge someone but not turn them over to law enforcement. and yet, we have men and women that in virginia, can't get -- they're felons who have served their time, they can't get the right to vote. we have a problem.

your first point, on wall street and not talking enough about wall street, it's a discussion are going to have today on the "washington journal," in our 8:30 a.m. session. we're talking a peter gleason, the president of the national association of corporate directors. when we talk about efforts to overhaul corporate governance. stick around for that trade listen in, and feel free to join the conversation on twitter and facebook as well. what hear your thoughts and all our viewers thoughts this morning as we have that discussion. james is indicator, arkansas on the line for those who make under $50,000 a year. good morning. inler: this is james decatur, arkansas. [indiscernible] i do not get enough money on the income i get. i'm going to support donald

trump. host: why is that, james? and please, turn on your tv in the background so you can hear you clearly. i am supporting him because i was going to support hillary clinton one time, and she turned her back on all of us. host: when was that, james? in 2008. when she let obama have all the votes. i did not vote for obama. host: you are saying she shouldn't have supported him after she didn't get the nomination? caller: yes. host: have you voted republican before? or would this be your first time? caller: it is my first time as a republican, voting is a republican. ok.: we go to jeff now in fayetteville, north carolina.

on the line for those who make between $50,000 and $100,000 a year. caller: good morning. do you think you'll ever have a show on how hillary clinton's led to the execution of that nuclear scientist from iran? host: you are talking about the news that came out yesterday? caller: yeah, how hillary's e-mails led to his execution. showswe've done several on the e-mails, i'm sure we will do future shows on the e-mails. e-mail the particular the lead to the execution of the iranian nuclear scientist. we would like to see that show. mark -- the guide a call from fayetteville, he's my neighbor. he has obama signs all over his yard. you are starting to disappoint me. your show is no more than a

black call in -- host: i disagree with you on that. keep watching, keep going back to our archives and see all the people who call into our show. we invite all of our viewers to call in, and have that discussion in this public forum. we are talking about donald trump, his economic speech yesterday. one of the issues he focused on was trade in that speech. we want to show our viewers a bit of what he had to say about the tpp and bad trade deals and together. [video clip] is why i havethat announced that we will withdraw from the deal before that could ever, ever, ever happen. [applause] donald trump: hillary clinton will never withdraw from tpp. she has bought, controlled, and paid for by her donors and special interests. 100%.

because my only interest is the american people, i have previously laid out a detailed for trade comen available on website. it includes strong protections against currency manipulation, a big problem. countriesainst any that sheet by unfairly subsidizing their goods. and it includes a total renegotiation of nafta, which is a disaster for our country. in our program, we showed you the "wall street journal," editorial focusing on donald trump's speech here at the "new york times." in a speech billed as a blueprint for stimulating growth and jobs, mr. trump offered a grab bag of ideas that aren't from discredited supply-side economics and fossil fuel industries wishlist and america

first isolationism. host: mr. khan considers himself a businessman uniquely a of improving the economy, but this risk of misguided and risky proposals would reduce economic growth while showering the rich with tax breaks. if you want to read the full editorial, it's in today's paper. teresa is waiting in fort worth, texas on the line for those who make between $50,000 and $100,000 a year. teresa, good morning. caller: good morning. wem for trump, and i think should go for his economic plan. the problem with hillary -- i'm a 61-year-old woman, i want to know what she plans to do for me. and another thing -- the bit about the free education -- that is so bogus. who is going to pay for that? and yes, she is going to tax the middle income, which is what we

are. tax, and then they do away with the middle income people, that we are going to be in the category of the under 50 k. money -- our salaries would just keep on shrinking. host: what part of donald trump's plan -- caller: i want to tell you, i've been married 40 years. he and my husband, we don't even have a college education. but we have never lived off the system. we don't ask for handouts. -- we have had to work hard for what we've done. i have a son who is paying back college loans. school, it out of took him two years, and he in 2007.

it took him two years before he even got a job with his degree. jobs are tore these come from? that are going to be created from all of these free educational career people -- where those jobs going to come from? host: all right, we go to jana in washington, d.c. on the line for those who make under $50,000 a year. caller: yes, hi. thanks for taking my call. i wanted to comment on trump economic plan. i don't agree with it. he is actually addressing the plan for the business and corporations. it will leave people under $100,000, and certainly under $50,000, in the poverty category. in mira longo, from foreign countries. for $30,000 tom

$50,000, maybe even more. he's not hiring any american workers. i know there are plenty of americans in washington, d.c. that would take those jobs. so donald trump's economic plan is made for large business corporations. it will widen the gap of poverty as well as the middle-class. host: janet is our last caller in the session. robert, tweet from h who asks where's the press on trump cutting taxes on the rich, when he said he would raise taxes on the rich? the silence is stunning. continue this discussion later in our program today, will have time for open phones. up next on the "washington journal," we are by gil professor jacob hacker, co-author of the book "american amnesia, how the war on government made us forget what made america prosper." to say why hes thinks blue states are better

off in red states. and later on, peter gleason will join us. -- president of corporate directors. talking about a new effort to improve business. we will be right back. ♪ "q&a," a night at documentary film instructor wards about his students' a winning documentaries. he teaches at james high school nks high school in oklahoma. >> i'm not the kind of teacher will look at something and say that's nice, you did a nice job on that. and eventually every single one of my kids makes a better piece than they did in the beginning. every single one of them. and eventually, the kid to do really well internalize all this stuff. i no longer have to say it to them, their own brain is saying these things to them.

>> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." watchc-span.org, you can our programming any time at your convenience, on your desktop, laptop, or mobile device. go to our home page, c-span.org, and click on the the library search bar. you can type in the name of the speaker, the sponsor of the bill, or even the event topic. review the list of search results and click on the program you like to watch. or refine your search with our many search tools. if you're looking for the most current programs and you don't want to search the video library, our homepage has many current programs ready for your immediate viewing, such as today's "washington journal," or the events we covered that day. c-span.org is a public service of your cable or satellite provider. if you are a c-span watcher, check it out at c-span.org. >> "washington journal," continues. host: jacob hacker is professor

of political science at yale university. he joins us to discuss his efforts to compare red states and blue states when it comes economic in decatur prosperity and social indicators as well. your recent new york times column states he found the path to prosperity is blue. explain how you came to that conclusion. i weremy co-author and interested in looking at the states as laboratories of economic policy. basically the states based on their voting patterns in presidential elections. i should say that if you look at other indicators, such as the current occupants, partisanship of the governor's mansion and the statehouse, or if you look at long-term patterns of economic policy, the conclusions are pretty similar. but we were trying to show is that this idea the just cutting taxes or freeing up businesses with deregulations or

encouraging natural resource extraction isn't a short ticket to prosperity. in fact, we start to look at things like median income, the typical person's income within the state, or education levels or poverty -- a whole host of other indicators, including what proportion of the workforce is actually working, it turns out that the blue states actually look pretty good. they are on the top end of the distribution. we basically laid out a bunch of charts showing on a bunch of indicators that the blue state directly doing pretty well. that redrfect, or states don't have something to teach us, but we are trying to push back against this common assumption that the south and the red states and the nation are just cleaning the blue states' clock. host: you mentioned some of those indicators, the story and charts the go with it.

five charts showing the comparison between states you identified as red states and blue states. median household income, life expected to birth, taxation of the top 1%, and bachelors degree or higher among those in the states. were those the only five indicators that you used, were there more? guest: we looked at a whole range of them and decided those were good ones to put out. i should say the taxation point was not to say that it's a great thing to tax the top 1%. aswas just a point out that you might expect, the blue states generally have higher taxes on the wealthy. but they still have higher incomes, even when you adjust for cost of living. --y still seem to form performed really well in terms of producing patents. look to research and development spending and infant mortality. we looked at indicators of social dislocation, crime, incarceration, the rate of people without health insurance. the conclusion is pretty similar.

i really want to make clear, because we're going to have callers come in and talk about it. we are really trying to lay the evidence out. one of our most important point is that you can just look at a snapshot from one year. a you can't just look at snapshot from one year. we talk about the long-term development of states. was interest in to us is that the red states, particularly in the south, is closing in on the north for much of the 20th century. starting around 1980, we don't see that continuing convergence. in fact, as would point out, massachusetts just pulled away from texas and utah, some of the other well performing red states. another quick point i want to emphasize is that the red states that often are pointed out as being really big success stories are ones that are sitting on huge piles of oil reserves. fracking hasas in been a big boon for states like north dakota. alaska has always been a pretty wealthy state because of oil.

we want to make clear that while we think that well-regulated resource exploration is a good thing, in fact, it is not a ticket for a lot of states that don't have natural resources. and there are some costs, including, as we know, global warming. and we are going to be trying to make carbon emissions less of a problem in the future. we want toear that encourage states to sort of do come what may resource extraction as a route to prosperity, even if they have resources in the ground. host: we are to have callers call in. phone lines are open. republicans, call (202) 748-8001 , democrats, call (202) 748-8000 . independents, call (202) 748-8002. article,through his the path to prosperity is blue. is 18 blue states

identified, 22 red states in these charts that we have here. the blue stateke and what makes a red state, for these purposes? guest: as i pointed out at the outset, there are a lot of ways you can define it. our interest is in long-term economic policies of the state. to make things simple, we looked at the states -- the last four presidential elections. states that went all democrat in the last four presidential elections, we label is blue. states that went all republican, we label as red. if you look at economic policies or who controls state governments, the conclusion is pretty similar. host: median household income is one will show -- i did me to cut you off. go ahead. guest: i'm just going to mention something. it is a short piece, and we had some discussion of this. we think a lot of the reasons why blue states of done well in the last 35 years is that the

rewards for education and innovation have gone up. those of the states that both attract and seem to be better at producing more educated citizens. isig part of our argument it's what you do with taxes that matters. are you investing in the future prosperity of your state? we know the federal government is super important here. but we are trying to point out that states have an important role as well. particularly with higher education and k-12 education, working with local governments. host: we will show you the top 10 on two categories, when it comes to median household income, alaska ranked at the top and maryland in massachusetts, followed by red state north carolina, blue state connecticut, and that purple state, virginia, leaning blue state new hampshire, blue state, minnesota, blue state, new jersey, red state, utah around up the top 10 when it comes to education for states with residents that have bachelors degrees or higher, the present

of those of the age 25 years old or older that have bachelors degree or higher, it goes massachusetts, a blue state at the top followed by purple state, colorado. blue state, maryland, blue state, new jersey. leaning blue state answer, blue state vermont, blue state new york, blue state minnesota in the top 10. we can discuss the charts and methodology, we want to bring in the calls. mark is in hyannis, massachusetts. the line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. and thank you, mr. hacker, for .riting this report looking at the graph in the background, it is super detailed. not to sound biased, because i am from massachusetts, and we rank pretty high in education of everything else. when i graduated college in 2001, i took a job in new orleans, louisiana. as a marketing manager.

i soon learned that there really palpable -- i don't --w -- differentiation education, prosperity, everything in general. one of the factors that i looked at was fortune 500 companies. louisiana, at the time, didn't even have one, or they had one fortune 500 company in the whole state. where is massachusetts or connecticut or new york might have 50. or california probably has 100. thank you, i appreciate it. host: professor hacker. guest: thank you, mark. massachusetts does pretty well and a lot of the rankings. it should be noted that it is a state that has had a tradition of having moderate republicans also play a role in governance.

again, i think it's really important to keep in mind that there is a lot of role for bipartisanship in states that are successful. he mentioned louisiana, which is a state that has recently had a big experiment with big tax cuts under the former governor, bobby jindal. it was pretty much a bust. it wasn't as bad as what happened in kansas under governor sam brownback, but it was a good illustration that just cutting taxes can be really devastating to states economies if you don't have the ability to do the other things you want to do. in particular, in louisiana, they cut higher education funding by over 40%, which i think is really going to hurt the state over the long term. the thing that is really striking to me, and this isn't well understood, is that over the last generation, we have growth more and more concentrated in a few large urban areas. the top six cities are urban areas account for about .25% of our current economy.

it's much more concentrate and then you see in other countries. what i was going to say is as mark was pointing out, a lot of that reflects the fact that their real benefits for co-locations of companies. there are these effects of agglomeration, where companies and workers come together. in places like boston and san francisco, seattle, new york city, increasingly, washington, d c . we want to lead all red states that have succeeded in this area, austin, texas, the raleigh-durham, chapel hill area, those are good examples. -- we don't want to leave out all the red states that have succeeded in this area. routems to be the best that we know now today. host: if someone is looking at economic indicators you use, is it more of a comparison between urban economies versus rural economies and urban economies just happen to be in blue states

versus more rural economies being in red states? guest: that is a great question. for all of indicators, we are using state averages. it's worth noting there are a lot of disparities within states, not just between rural and urban areas or suburban and urban areas, but also across income groups. one achilles' heel of the blue state model, we think, is that it hasn't dealt with the serious problem of inequality. on average, inequality is a little bigger and blue states. blue states do more to help those who are suffering due to rising inequality, but i think that is a real issue, especially given how costly housing is in many blue states. thing i would say as we adjust our income figures for the cost of living within states. it's not a reflection of the reality that blue states are more expensive and you just have to earn more. it's a great question. we may stop talking as much about state policies as we learn

more and more about how cities are producing prosperity. but the states are really important. because the federal government has been stalemated with partisanship, the states have basically taking -- have basically taken more distant was dropped. host: tom is in woodbridge, virginia. caller: thanks for c-span, i think you guys are amazing. the thing i think you ignore, it seems like it is glossed over, statesfact that the blue tend to beat this portion only recipient of federal tax dollars that flow into the states, rather than providing taxes out to other states. i think that by ignoring that fact, they are net recipients of federal tax dollars, the entire basis of your argument is

somewhat skewed. you mentioned it a second ago, inequality, a large deal of inequality within these blue states and i would argue that the reason there is inequality is because the democrats have enabled the poor to remain for -- remain poor, rather than incentivizing them to work. if you pay them to stay poor, they will stay poor. if you incentivize them, productivity will rise because these people would be productive , rather than being tied down by entitlements. almostocratic party has destroyed the self-esteem of the poor by convincing them they cannot obtain anything without somebody handing them something. host: i want to give the

professor a chance to respond. guest: i will take the first point and hopefully i can return to the second one later. ,hen we started this research we did not have strong priors about what accounted for the differences across states, but the one thing we were struck by was that the red states where the state thickens the biggest amount back for every tax dollar that is sent to washington. there are a couple of reasons for that. had a figure that showed this disparity, showing that red states were net takers if you will. we decided -- we did not have enough space to put it in, but i am happy to send it to anyone who would like to have a copy. guest: on your website? i will make sure i have a copy of it but up on the website.

i can make all of the data available. if you google me, you can find my website at yale. aside, why is it that ted -- red states tend to receive more benefits relative to tax dollars paid? the reason is because they tend to remainpoorer then the blue than the remain poorer blue states. was a really big investments in the red states after world war ii that created a lot of military and other federal installations, particularly in the south, but it is mostly a reflection of the tend tot these states remain poor. if you think about it, the fact that the blue states tend to

subsidize the red states on average and the fact that they are doing better on some of these indicators, i think is even more impressive because the flow of funds goes in the opposite direction from what tom mentioned. to the second question, it would be interesting to do a study of the role of full economic policies these states pursue, including public benefits. a lot of the benefits he was talking about our federal programs. it is important to keep in mind that the states are in the business of investment. they are investing in education, health care is more of a present good. they help pay for medicaid programs, but there is a lot of research that suggests medicaid has long-term benefits, particularly for kids, allowing them to be more productive in the future. states are investing in their infrastructure and the quality of life for residents, and so

on. i think it is important to understand that states are in the investment business, and that is one of the reasons why states that just cut taxes are also underperforming because they are not doing the same kinds of investments, particularly in education. host: you mentioned indicators you were able to include and not include in this story. some concern among those who have read the story, that allows for cherry picking. jared whitley is a columnist who worked for the george w. bush white house and wrote a piece in the hill newspaper about your story. he called the data sets incomplete and says it is easy to when a political argument when you only compare your strengths to your opponents weaknesses. blue states may outperform red states in wealth, lifespan and level of education, but that is because of long-standing

advantages that have nothing to do with policy and blue states fall in military service, birthrates and generosity. guest: i agree with the critique that one should not cherry picked, and we were very careful to put out indicators that i think most people would agree are good measures. consider the trunk -- contrary points that were made in that column. generosity,vice and by which i assume charitable contributions are quite important, but i'm not sure they are as good a measure of prosperity as income per head, adjusted for cost-of-living, or the life expectancy and health of citizens and their educational levels. in any case, i think it is important to think about this in the kind of broad terms that are being encouraged.

the more indicators we have, the better. severale talked about indicators we did not include in the graph. we talked about inequality. we also talked about labor force participation, i was surprised to see, given that the red states have less unionized nation, so you think the labor markets might be more flexible, but they actually have lower rates of labor force participation for prime age workers. that means there were more people who could work, who are not working in the red states. i think it is important not to cherry pick. the other point i would make about this long-standing difference. that is a tricky issue. it is true that the blue states have long been richer than red states or we should say since the partisan map has changed, that the southern states have long been poor and the north eastern and western states have long been richer, particularly

the northeastern states. the point we made is over the last generation, those gaps have not been closing. they were closing for much of the 20th century, which makes an integratedin national economy, you would expect the states to support each other. we actually subsidize the red states a little bit, so those two things would make you think that they might actually continue to converge, but they have not and we should ask why. this is not an issue that should be partisan. it should be an issue of how do you grow an economy in a 21st-century where knowledge and education matter a lot more than they ever have? you: those indicators mention, life expectancy and birth in the top 10, are nine blue or leading blue states including hawaii, california, massachusetts, or month and new jersey. utah the only state in the top 10 when it comes to life

expectancy at birth. already states, georgia, south carolina, kentucky, oklahoma, alabama, west virginia and mississippi. coconut beach, california, democrat. caller: i want to premise by not trump oram not a clinton supporter. jobs are the key for economic growth, whether it is a red state or blue state. if you look at the 90's, they were more jobs lost under nafta in the long run than were created. then you had george w. bush with the tax cuts to the corporations and the rich. that was supposed to be an incentive to create jobs, but they did not. here is a clue. six or seven months ago, bill clinton, representing his foundation, met with a group at the forms forum, -- the forbes

four run, a bunch of millionaires and billionaires. the purpose according to him was to create jobs. where was he seven years ago when we needed him? when hillary brags about jobs she created in new york, most of them were up in that wealthy ,rea where her and bill live little wine and cheese gourmet shops. it is very political. red states, blue states. who is pulling the strings, and we have not had good leadership and i don't trust the democrats anymore than i trust the republicans. the democrats tended pretty tough on themselves judging from that caller. there to respond to, but the first thing i would say is that job growth is a very important part of prosperity.

clinton -- the clinton administration presided over a very rapid rate of job growth. he also raised taxes. one of the things i would note is historically, bill clinton raising taxes and pretty healthy job growth, then you have george w. bush cutting taxes and pretty anemic job growth and since the downturn, under president obama, job growth has been pretty healthy and he did raise taxes eventually, letting some of the tax cuts expire. part of the problem when it looks the history is that people can always throw in other factors. it was 9/11 that hurt george w. bush or maybe it just happened to be that was a time of economic change. that is why looking at the states can be helpful. the other thing i would say about job growth is you have to be careful because if you look just at the growth of jobs within a state, you are picking up population changes as well,

and i think there is an important question about why people move from one state to another. we have lower rates of -- lower but there iser, movement speaking towards the south and southwest. because the states are gaining population, they have to create or jobs to get the same level of employment. we point out that a lot of the measures that people use, that show texas doing really well, are really based on aggregate growth of jobs or aggregate growth of the economy, which is affected by population changes. it is important to step back and look at indicators that are not dependent on population and have a separate discussion about why are people moving from one state to another, how much of a role did taxes play or immigration from other countries?

i wanted to clarify that for people wondering about job growth as a measure. host: a lot of callers who want to talk to you. sean in washington, independent. encouragewanted to all of the c-span viewers to check out one of your earlier books which i considered brilliant. it was the great risk shift and maybe if we could combine some of the ideas from that with your current effort, i guess the point i would like to make is that as more and more of the blue states turn toward right to work states, i think the most important issue is that workers and poor people have no leverage in the system. the blueep praise on states as economic equality -- economic inequality gets worse, it becomes a every man for himself economy and most people

look at blue states and think they are the fire economies, finance, insurance and real estate. if you could combine some of your ideas on the great risk work, whatur current would you say in terms of people who look at the blue states and say they do of the ledbetter, but it is public-private partnerships and this crony capitalism and what we want to do is empower labor unions and people to have the leverage they deserve so we can have more economic equality. guest: thank you so much, and thank you for mentioning that book. paul pierson and i are out trying to get people interested in our later -- latest book, american amnesia. let me make a couple of points. the caller is right that there

are parts of blue america that are based on the finance, insurance real estate model. new york city is the key example, but a lot of the successful blue state are in the knowledge economy. when you look in boston, yes insurance is important, that they have done well in biotech. area,ancisco bay technology of course, the internet. the same for seattle and tim -- also to mention some of the red state hubs as well. austin has done very well. the other thing i would say is that we should distinguish public-private partnerships for you have academia, local and state governments and businesses working together to coordinate around long-term issues like developing a zika of the -- a zika vaccine, and areas where you are talking about much more

of a maligned coordination between government and business, which i do think is what happened in wall street. we mentionednesia, that you have to have a creative tension between the government and the private sector. through research and development spending, and investment, government encourages the private sector to move farther and -- farther down the frontier of technology and knowledge. on labor unions, i would think this is an open debate. a lot of the analyses that have been done about right to work states seem to be very misleading, and the fact is that the states that are blue are also there -- are the states that have high rates of unionization and that does not seem to be a big impediment to prosperity. as the caller pointed out, there are reasons unions are helpful in giving workers bargaining power. i don't want this to be a

critique of the important role of unions and in fact, it is quite the opposite. states at the low ends of those indicators have very weak unions. host: you mentioned the great risk shift. professor hacker was on our booktv program back in 2009 and talked about that book. if you want to learn more about it or pick it up, it was published in 2006. the latest book, american amnesia, how the war on government made us forget what made america prosper. dave is next on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i have a couple statements i want to make. to thet question professor is, apparently -- how is he registered?

are you talking about how he votes? caller: yes. guest: i am registered to vote and i don't think it will take your rocket scientist or a political scientist to figure out bipartisanship, but i don't think that is irrelevant in the present context. ournumbers that we have numbers that are the same whether you look at them through blue eyes or red eyes. thisnk it is important and is an important issue to bring up, which is the role of academics and objectivity. i don't know how many people saw that the new york times had a piece with some think tanks that have been responding to the pressures of corporations to sort of skew their research in particular ways. my research is very much informed by my values. that is the say the questions that i picked, the kinds of

issues like health care which is one that i am interested in, but the conclusions i reach, i really tried as a social scientist, to go with the evidence takes me, which is why i have been very forthright about the pros and cons of the blue and red state models. we can talk more about some of those cons and i'm sure people would like to hear about the problems that some states are having with pension funding, for example. that is just a preface. i would like to hear the rest of the question. i want to make sure people understand you can look at the data and it will look the same it you are republican or democrat. int: we will go to vick crystal lake, republican. caroline: -- caller: thank you for taking my call. and i was there during the heyday, 70's, 80's.

it was all due to manufacturing. that isrom the state practically all manufacturing. anything that could be , andurced is outsourced that is why we've got -- if you win the lottery in illinois, they can't even afford to pay you what you have won. your philosophy is really weird, things,the way i see there are so many opportunities for a guy like me with just a high school education, and now, you can't find a job, even college graduates cannot find a job, because -- i will tell you what, i was part of engineering that and i went to where

group was a couple of years after i retired, and nobody spoke english. i have no idea how they communicate anymore. pass the tpp like i it's going tofor, devastate this country, the cousin a little manufacturing we have is going to be gone. i will wait for your opinion. host: i'm not sure you have expressed an opinion on tpp yet. guest: people want bipartisanship and my view on tpp, let me get back to the question about manufacturing because it is important. in the 70's, we saw a shift away from manufacturing and some of that was due to that policy choices, but a lot of it was due

to large forces notably, the rise of new economic powers. first japan and china, who were able to produce manufacturing goods which more cheaply and most richries, democracies have moved away from manufacturing. we could have done more to keep our manufacturing days and it will be interesting to look at the. . places that have done the best you can do very well in advance manufacturing, and there are both red and blue examples. the best places for advanced manufacturing are blue, but there are places like wichita, kansas and the houston area where nasa does a lot of work and advanced manufacturing is done. one thing i want to mention on the manufacturing front is that this may be an area where we really need to sort of combine

the insights of the industrial and postindustrial economy because more and more, the manufacturing is being done with robots and other advanced technology, and it requires a lot of human ingenuity to make those kinds of production processes work. there is a lot of writing suggesting that far from making workers obsolete, skilled workers who can use this to technology can prosper in this new economy. i hope that is true, i worry about the difficulty of creating jobs in a postindustrial economy. a red state think it's a good amount of praise in your column. let's go to owen, republican. caller: i would like to educate the call-in's. andved in four states, sitting at a desk and looking through a whole bunch of numbers i did 46 years of

hard work. alabama, i had to go to georgia to get a job. nafta came in, i saw and his industry, textiles, aircraft parts, leave, this was during mr. clinton's term. the jobs went away. i had to go to louisiana. they started shipping jobs away in louisiana. i wound up in texas and all of this is a ploy. the red states at industry. how do you kill this country? you kill it by taking our industry away. you kill it by taking coal mining away. you kill it by taking our oil industry away. there are thousands of friends out here in texas that have not got a job because somebody wants to hug a tree and i guarantee china is making more pollution

in one day then this country makes in a week or two weeks. host: what industry were you in? caller: i was in machine tools, maintenance, even in the textile and plastics. it has all gone away. host: as of the federal policies that are hurting red states more than blue states? caller: that is it. you take the jobs away from us, all we are is a socialist country. our back is broken. host: let's give the professor a chance to respond. guest: it is a heartfelt statement, and i want to point out that i think that the transition that we are going through, away from a heavier dependence on fossil fuels is especially cold, which is a very high carbon emitting fossil

fuel, is really wrenching, and we are not doing enough to deal with the dislocations caused by it. people that are losing their jobs in west virginia or texas should be given skills, encouragement to move into other lines of work that require the same kinds of skills. we are not doing that, i we are not putting money into the community. i think that is the first thing to say. china and thethat u.s. have actually agreed to fairly substantial reductions in what their carbon emissions would be, overall. that is driven by the reality of global warming, and i'm sure that i will get a lot of callers to call in and day this is some kind of tree hugger conspiracy, but the science is pretty clear, and it is a real threat for our planet. one of the things we are trying to point out is that while alaska and north dakota and and louisiana have

prospered because of their fossil fuel industries, if you look 30 years in the future, that is not going to be the source of prosperity. there is another problem with resource extraction besides the huge one, that we are risking our future, and that is that it often is very cyclical, driven by oil and gas prices and i think texas has faced and louisiana have faced problems because of a drop in oil prices. states need to have diversified economies. texas is a big and diverse economy and much more so than louisiana or alaska, but it is another issue that states need to think about. i want to come back and say it is very important to recognize that within red states, there are some pockets of austerity where a lot of this innovation is taking place. austin, texas is one of those

places as i have mentioned several times. these places are doing well because they are breaking away from the red state script of low taxes, limited investment and no regulation. many of these cities, in fact an overwhelming portion of cities are blue because in part they recognize the need for those educational and other investments that are the keystone of long-term prosperity. host: you mentioned science, here is one of the indicators from your column, patent rates, patents from -- patent per million residents. top three states are blue states , vermont, california and -- at the bottom 10 in that same state, kentucky, montana, south dakota, alabama, louisiana, then boosted hawaii,

then for -- then four -- then blue state hawaii, then four red states. carol in georgia, democrats. mr. hacker, if you notice that in the red states, and the blue states, the difference is, that everything --t is good for the people they are held by republican governors and legislators. buton't get out and vote, everything is held by republicans. how do you not want health care? every red state denies health care. how do you not want good schools for the children? how are you going to talk about black people not working when most of the black people in the south work for the state of georgia and they closed all the

jobs down? look at the blue states. what at the red states. in the red states, they want to cut regulations. looking at her they have destroyed the water. they are destroying the land and -- host: you bring up a lot of issues and i want to let professor hacker address some of them. guest: you can see how upset people get when they don't feel that the state government is working well, or the federal government for that matter. carol has hit on something important, which is that a lot of the states, a lot of the states that have performed poorly, they may not have has high rates of inequality, but they have very high rates of poverty and often, it is african-american poverty in the case of a state like georgia or mississippi. that persistent poverty is a huge issue and it is hard to

address if the political system is not responsive to the broad spectrum of citizens. i worry in both blue and red states that we have less competitiveness between the parties. when one party controlled government completely, there was a lot less pressure for it to be responsive to those who are not in the current party coalition. in the south, that is often people who are not republican. in some blue states, it is people who are not democrat and that is a problem in both cases because historically, and this is important, it has been a bipartisan coalition that has created prosperity, one that has not been always and everywhere andsed to using government taxing citizens if necessary to be about to create that prosperity. that is what we need to get back to. the places that have done best have been pragmatic, not ideological.

we need a little bit more of that pragmatism in our economic debates. that is why i put the evidence out there. people should look at it and draw their own collusion -- conclusions, but a lot of policymakers are not even doing that. we are going to lose professor hacker in just a few minutes, but joe has been waiting for the republican line. c-span you should be on for an hour every day. correct me if i'm wrong, the 17th amendment was about the direct election of senators and you mentioned how -- the senators were supposed to be able to -- were given so much ther so they could protect laboratories of the democracies in the state and they a limited that whole mechanism when they provided for direct elections of senators.

did you take that into consideration? it enabled the federal government to cover up imaginations in this area as well as the cia would. guest: we don't talk about that in this piece, but it is an interesting point. theeople know, under original constitution, the senators were not elected and it was not until the 20th century that the constitution was changed to allow that. that was say, i think a pretty good change, because it does not make sense in my mind to have such an important representative of citizens not be directly elected. it is still the case that the senate and senators are very much representative of states. the very structure of the senate was to senators per state -- two senators per state. it gives the states like wyoming part ofular edge and

the reason that the federal government has not been stepping up in a lot of areas and the states have been left to take on the task of creating prosperity is that the filibuster, which is the tradition of unlimited debate in the senate is not in the constitution. it has made it really hard for the senate to do business. least look at the populated states, states representing 10% of citizens could wage a filibuster if they banded together. a filibuster can only be broken if you can get 60 senators, which is 30 states, to support it. we are tilted too far in favor of the states, particularly the smaller ones, but it think the caller is right to point out that being an important change and the 20th century was a shift away from the states as the primary source of economic

policy and much more to war the federal government and for a lot of good reasons. you can't expect the states to run their own monetary policies, and so today we are seeing a shift back toward the states and we are seeing growing gaps among them as a result. that is why it is an interesting case to look at. you can look at the states and they tell you more than they used to about how different economic policies were. jacob hacker is the director for economic policy studies at young university and co-author of the book american amnesia, how the war on government let us forget what made america prosper. we appreciate your time on the washington journal. ,oming up next, peter gleason president of the national association of corporate directors. he is here to talk about a new effort by ceos to improve how they do business. it is primary day in four states.

back.l be right ♪ >> on saturday, c-span's issue spotlight looks at trade deals, their impact on the economy, jobs and the presidential election. >> we will defend american jobs and american workers by saying no to that trade deals like the transpacific partnership and unfair trade practices like when china -- >> the state of pennsylvania has lost one third of its manufacturing jobs since the clintons put china into the wto. >> the program includes a look at nafta, the 1994 free trade agreement between the united states, mexico and canada. >> this will weld us together in the cause of more jobs, more exports from markets, and more

democracy for our allies. >> at discussion on how the founding fathers viewed free trade. >> historically, the united states was simply not a free trade nation for most of american history, the u.s. is in fact a carrot protected economy. this goes back to our very constitution. >> an in-depth examination of the wto, the body that enforces global trade rules. >> at the time wto is being negotiated or its smaller sister of rules0 more pages and regulations, nothing legible here. when these two were being 500 corporate advisors. >> wash our -- watch our issue spotlight on trade deals on c-span and c-span.org.

>> washington journal continues. minutes, our next 45 we talk about public trust in corporations and pop -- corporate leadership. peter gleason is here, president of the national association of corporate directors. explain what your group does and who you represent. guest: we are a membership association for both individual directors and full corporate boards. shy of 18,000 members, predominantly in the united states. is to identify, analyze and incorporate issues that are making their way into corporate agendas and socialize those, put them out into the public debate and eventually lead to practices in the board room. host: these are publicly traded companies, representing 98% of fortune 1000 companies. how would you describe the

current state of publicly traded companies and trust in those companies? that is a great question because of what we have seen over the last 15 years. there has been skepticism and we have slowly been building that trust backup with performance. we have had a good run of shareholder returns over the past couple of years. there is still some question out there in how companies are run, whether they are disclosing how they make money in many cases and our job is to go out there. we represent the director communities. we also represent private companies and large nonprofits. our job is to help in transparency, help in the process is that companies go through to run their own organizations and focus on the board of directors as opposed to the management team. the distinction between those two is important because directors are not there running

the organization day, today. they provide oversight, they are advisors to the management team, but they are independent. they are not there as the operators of the company. host: when we talk about the issue of good corporate government, what goes into that? guest: a lot. it spans from the structures and processes that companies have around how they operate, how they make money and how they disclose their financial results. everything -- everything from the performance evaluations to the disclosures to the committee functions, it is really the processes that companies use to oversee the management team. host: an effort has been underway that has gotten headlines, and overhaul of corporate governments.

warren buffett is involved. the ceo at j.p. morgan and chase. aest: they came out with series of common sense principles, and what they as hast -- what they espoused been what our organization has been promoting for the last 45 years. the common sense name was practical for this issuance. out therehat they put is a lot of what companies have been doing for years, some of the more progressive and established companies. we got feedback on these principles, saying that it is great that they are out there, but we have been doing this for years, so what is new? what is new is you have the names that you just cited, you have an activist investor in the probablythis group was

the first time they got together and said here is what we believe then and here is how companies should be run and here is what we think is important. host: here is some of those principles that this group came up with. board of directors should be truly independent from their company. boards should be diverse and have enough turnover to make sure that they remain fresh. boards should have a strong independently director, especially at the ceo has a dual role -- if the ceo has a dual role. we have our we are talking with peter gleason. taking your calls and questions as we talk about corporate governance in this country. phone numbers, republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. , (202)-748-8002. we go to glenn in california, republican. caller: i would like to talk about quantitative easing.

the trillions of dollars that the federal reserve has pumped into the stock market. who has benefited from this? the big banks? corrupt politicians the clinton foundation? what is really going on? we spent $10 trillion in the last seven years, and we are not even where we were. iss corrupt government sickening, what is happening to the american people, and the press is not talking about any of this. rainsve hank paulson the to do anything he wanted, which is aig, the big banks and the millionaires and billionaires of this country have made out like bandits, but the people on

social security, disability and american citizens have not got anything but more illegal immigration, corrupt hospital care where we have to get into -- or we are find. ed. host: we want to give peter gleason a chance to respond. one of the reasons we saw this group come out with these principles, we came out with similar principles back in 2009. hours were done collectively with these investors and with the business roundtable's so the corporate leaders and the investor groups could try to reestablish some of this trust that has been broken. some of the things the caller was referring to like some of the scandals. rebuilding that trust is why we are looking to some of these

principles, why we are looking to corporations. when it comes down to it, the corporations are the ones creating job, and we have to have that trust in the corporations to be able to look corporationsbuild and to be able to hire to go intoemployees those companies. there is a way that we have to continue to build trust. there are some out there who believe the trust is broken and that it cannot come back. guest: a lot of it is transparency and that is what a lot of these principles get to. six years ago, it was telling us how these companies are run, being more transparent about it, communicating with the shareholders. the shareholders are the owner of the -- owners of the corporation. to do something, if we are going to build a strategy or long-term goal, we

ought to be more transparent in what we are doing, how we are executing and what those goals actually are you people know how we are progressing. markety, we know if share -- when we go out there digging that 20% market share, we will have to hire new people and create new jobs. host: give me a concrete example of how that transparency is happening. guest: the best place to look is the proxy statements that the companies put out. on the other side of the industry and i looked at proxy statements every day for my job. the average proxy statement was in the 30 to 40 page range. the transparency now that is frank --via. frank --. dodd frank is now on average, 46 pages, just the compensation section, little of the sections

around who the directors are, who -- what their biographies are, what are the things that have to be voted on. we have gotten a great deal more transparency in how companies are caring -- telling shareholders what is going on. host: craig is an independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to thank c-span for all they do, you bring a great range of guests. my question has to do with corporate power. there is a big confusion in democracy and economy. the inequality that bernie sanders talked about, i believe inequity in the legal system, which favors corporations over people.

favoritism within the culture, within the economic system, within the legal system came through in the citizens united decision, which is now considered one of the worst decisions ever. the citizens united decision basically affirmed many years of court and other created law which has affirmed the principle of corporate personhood. my question is, or corporations people? and do corporations deserve greater rights than people, equal rights than people, or let's say fewer rights than people? guest: a tough question, and

thank you. there was a debate many years ago about does a corporation have a soul, which i guess is what you're getting at. it is a tough answer. the interesting thing about corporations is that they are run by people and they are responsible for different groups and that is where some of these principles are getting at, the long-term focus for companies to be held accountable to the shareholders, that there are broader groups that are impacted by companies if you think about employees, suppliers. when any company has an issue, they run into a problem with their distribution systems, the stock hurts, problems that have -- there may be layoffs.

responsibilityry has under law been to the shareholders, there are broader aspects to companies that bring in this personal aspect that you are talking about. we have to think about the employees that are within the corporate realm and what is going to happen to them should something happen to the company. if you think about it from a trade issue -- host: you are saying that they are not people, but made up of people. guest: it is hard to say that the density is a person. it's a little bit hard to grasp, but they are people at their core. the management team are people, the boards of directors are people. they have a duty and responsibility to another group of people. what people in a sense, have to think about how the structure is put in place. you have public companies responsible for the shareholders. they have employees they have to deal with, suppliers, when you think about in the wake of the

financial crisis, when we have the auto manufacturers struggling, there were thousands of layoffs, plants closing. those are people and the companies were doing everything they could to survive and move toward. they had to restructure their debt, they had bailouts. it was about to be the company alive because if these companies go down, which many people said let them die and we will start over. the impact on that goes back to the people, not just the shareholders, but the people, the communities were these companies were located. host: david in pennsylvania, democrat. caller: good morning. all, my first question we make it how can more mandatory that corporations

are transparent? so many mention the clinton foundation. i don't think they are transparent, and they should be audited. there seems to be so much corruption at the corporate level, and it is all about how much they are going to take home and for the people that are ,ctually part of the businesses that actually help the money, the movers and the shakers, everybody below those in the corporate offices, those are the people that always lose out. it is all the scandals that occur, they are always at the top. they get caught, they don't go to jail and they get away with a large sum of money. how can government change to make it more mandatory for transparency? as i said before, we have

seen a tremendous increase in transparency. there are competitive natures that are going to push back on the attendance -- on transparency. foundation,into the because it is a little outside of my expertise. in terms of the corporations themselves, we have seen in it -- increase in transparency. you can see that the leaders of the largest corporations in the country are pushing for greater transparency. you have to be careful that you don't ask for too much, because you will get to a point where nobody is going to read anything that gets put out and that can be a problem when you get to a stage that everybody -- every company disclosure is over 1000 pages, you have done yourself some harm because you are not communicating effectively. the question is how do we communicate what we are doing effectively and in plain english and still maintain a competitive

edge so can't disclose everything that is going on or you may lose your market share to one of your competitors. bite has to be a little from a corporate standpoint, of we will disclose what our broader goals are, but we will not disclose the tactics on how we will achieve those goals. thereis more transparency , it is increasing on a constant basis, and you can see that just by looking at the documents the companies put out. the problem is getting that transparency in plain english, so that it is readable, not just jargon. aey want to get down to system where we have clear, concise communication coming out of companies and more are certain to move in that direction. host: your group represents more than 17,000 directors. in general, how do boards get chosen? did they get paid, and what is

their relationship to the company? guest: there is a broad perspective on this because depending on where you are, you may get paid or not. ,f i look at public companies seectors are chosen and you in these principles that were released, there has been a call for independent directors for businesses that have been place in 40 years. we have been saying that the majority of the directors should be independent. you then create committees within the board, itself. you have an audit committee looks at the financial reporting aspects. then you have a nominating and governance committee. the nominating and government -- governance committee have no

ties back to management and their job is to look at what do we need in terms of skill sets on our board to help us move forward? they will go out and recruit directors and they may do that through their personal networks or search firms or databases. we have profiles of directors and they can say they needed financial executive in the pacific northwest with five years of public company experience as a director. we can identify a whole group of people like that. what they are trying to do is match the skill sets of the board against the strategy of the company to make sure we have the best advice we can possibly have and the best representation of diverse skill sets sitting and helping the management team to execute on their strategy. at public companies, you do get paid as a director and it varies depending on the size of the company.

you might get paid in stock because that is all they have. you generally have to hold that stock for a long time as a director, sometimes the company will require you hold it for the ure as a of your ten director so it is at market risk. as you grow in size, you tend to have a cash retainer and what we have said over the years and we made the recommendation in 1995 is that if you are a paid director of a public company, half of your compensation ought to be in cash so your interests are aligned with those of the shareholders. run anywherean from zero at start up companies to the average of about $250,000 of the combination of cash and stock at the larger companies. c,t: mark is in washington d -- washington, d.c., independent. caller: good morning.

i'm glad that you are on. i want to ask you a question. corporations are part of your group? guest: we have a number of privately held companies. trying to findre new ways to increase the perspectives on their boards to help their companies grow. usually, they don't have quite the number of resources that a public company has, although there are some very large companies that are members who have more established practices. they are a hearing to some of these principles and leading practices. host: did you have a follow-up? hello to clinton is on the board of directors for lobar

and i cannot think of what kind of expertise that she has in retail that would qualify her to be on the board of directors, but she is. maybe not now that she is running for president, but she that sort of political influence, i don't know if it has anything to do with running a company. i don't know whether she is currently on the board. i don't recall when she was, but companies very often, what i'm talking about who they are looking for in terms of who should be on the board -- walmart is a publicly traded company and they are looking at the skills they need to help management move lowered and often now will include government affairs, so they will look to former politicians and

some cases, they can't have missnt politicians, but clinton was secretary of state and if she was on the board, i assume it was after she was secretary of state. she represents an interesting class of people and we have a lot of them in washington, d.c. who are former political advisers or politicians who bring a different perspective to corporate boards, many of whom have large dealings with the government in terms of regulatory issues, trade issues, so they will bring in people who have experience in those issues to help guide the management team through those negotiations. we see former military officers and defense contractors because they have a very keen relate to how they negotiate contracts from the other side.

looking forlways that experience that can lend itself to the boardroom discussions and bring in someone to help the company move forward. washington times, multiple reports, this is donator. she wanted her father to give mrs. clinton a seat on walmart's board of directors. it was while mrs. clinton was serving as first lady of arkansas. she held the director position from 1986-1992, earned $18,000 a year with a bonus of $1500 for each quarterly report meeting she attended. is in cleveland, tennessee. on the line for the republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i think

these companies have lost their direction in a lot of ways. fact, theseof companies forget to the customers really are. look for ansumer, i product that is -- i don't think these folks realize that we do that. they need to be cautious before they move products overseas. thank you. host: thank you. guest: a good point. we see a lot of people objecting as to where companies -- products are made. but we are in a global economy and we are moving manufacturing both here and abroad. you look at how consumers shop, many of them look for the lowest price. and they may not think about where he product is made.

some people do. but it is really where a deficiency can be gained. you see companies that are proud to have the label "made in the may charge a little bit more. it is a competitive issue. host: roger green asked, what is the best -- halting convergence? i think it needs to be disclosed better, about how companies are functioning that way. and obama halting the inversion of a pharmaceutical company a it is -- itgo -- comes back to tax issues. issues inate tax united states versus other countries, how much it cost to operate here versus other countries. and whether there is a beneficial side to the inversion. the problem that can arise is

that you have a much more lenient operating environment in a foreign country and that is why companies go to the inversions. i don't have to pay the taxes that they would pay here and it is a benefit to the shareholders. --may not necessarily the necessarily be the benefit to the united states. group take aur position on the tax plan that donald trump talked about yesterday? the effort to ensure that u.s. no more thany 15%? guest: we don't. we are in educational organization. our mission is driven towards helping boards do their job better and focus on the job they have to do. we do not lobby and we do not take positions on politics. host: norm on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my

call. this topic is very enlightening for everybody. -- when i watch the sunday morning tv shows, a lot of times you will watch the pundits say, the republicans and the democrats in congress can't seem to agree on anything. and then i think -- really? maybe not for the average working person that let there be before them that benefits big oil, insurance ,ompanies, wall street banks pharmaceutical companies or any part of the military-industrial complex, and they will pass it overwhelmingly, bipartisan, 90 plus percent almost every time. it just seems that for the little person, it doesn't seem to be there. and welcome to the corporate states of america. we are no longer the united states of america.

getcan we change that and rid of -- i am a capitalist. in capitalism. i believe that if a person or company produces a product or service that is beneficial to everybody and everybody wants it and they do it fairly and openly, that manufacturer or person or company deserves to make a profit and a handsome profit if they are doing that. board, ratherbove than what happens today, where it seems we have all three branches of our government are bought and owned by the big corporations, because they will come down on the side of the corporations almost every time. guest: thank you for the question. i will respectfully disagree a little bit. as we think about what we saw in the wake of the last financial crisis with dodd frank, the most

sweeping financial legislation put apassed and it tremendous onus on companies the wall street bailout rules and that kind of thing. put a tremendous burden on companies. so it wasn't the companies who pushed this aside. we saw not frank get passed 2010helmingly in 2012 -- and it was enacted in 2012. i understand how you may feel about this but i'm not sure that it is the united states of corporate america. i think there is a lot of pressure on companies to act above board. that is one reason why ours or thes like companies that put out commonsense principles say this

is how we operate and this is what we believe in and this is how we will move forward for the betterment of corporate america and society. host: we have 50 minutes left with peter gleason, the president of the national association of corporate directors. how did you get the job? guest: good question. ford been on the other side the institutional shareholders for about eight years back in the 1990's, i worked with the largest constitutional investors. i was a consultant for a few ands and then i joined nacd i held up the research department. i was made president two years ago. host: and kind enough to give us time this morning. jeff is in massachusetts. go ahead. when clinton passed

nafta and the trade deal with china, the trade deal, we were supposed to get 35% tax and the companies who go over there and write everything up -- but some andted making money politicians passed a bill or a loophole way they could put the money into offshore companies and not pay the 35% taxes. and the whole reason for passing the republicans preached you would get 35% taxes and it would help fund but as soon as they started making money, they put a loophole so they didn't have to pay the tax. what do you think about this? what about all of the cities and towns -- why can't everybody in pittsburgh pay their property insurance to the city and then they take that money and they started a stork to compete with walmart and instead of rich people who can afford to buy

stocks and make money sitting at home doing nothing, the people that the citynies creates, the employees make the money. well, there is a variety of questions in there. i think when we look at what makes america great, it is the ability to do what you are talking about. if you think there is an aportunity to create competitive environment to compete against walmart in your city of pittsburgh, maybe you can do that. and that is free enterprise and capitalism and that is how we created this country to be the great country that it is. and havedeas like that the competitive spirit and push forward so people can profit. host: he seemed to be concerned about the system being raped with loopholes and benefits for those larger corporations as

opposed to the effort that he was proposing starting. guest: yes. the way the politicians work and the way the tax laws work, i'm not an expert in that area in terms of how loopholes get created and how they are there but again, if i go back to how companies are moving their efforts forward -- i will go back to the core in terms of the principles that we put out, this is how we make money and this is how we structure and this is what we believe is important in terms of transparency and communicating with shareholders. in terms of how we compensate our people. in terms of how we look to the long term to create value for our shareholders and companies. i think that is what companies are getting at. theng to focus more on loopholes, they are going to be there and corporations can't

control them. politicians have much more input. to one of the earlier callers questions. how do we push the politicians sandra onanges host: twitter makes the comment -- holding public service -- holding public office should not be a stepping stone. joan is on the line. good morning. caller: my question goes back to one of the fellows who talked earlier. corporations and the people who the top people in the corporations wouldn't be wealthy if it were not for the peoplerk of all of those that work underneath them. leaderso, the corporate never took more than a certain amount of money because they knew that their wealth came from those people that went to their

shops and stores and worked every single day to put money in the corporate pockets. and they need to learn to share. as if they have to go into the work, they couldn't do it. -- when ther thing supreme court said that corporations were people, why aren't they subject to the same man isat the every day subject to? money, i ammebody limited to the amount of interest that can be charged. have companies and corporations and credit card companies that are charging 20% monthly for money that is owed to them. but these states really are not in the best interest of the little guy. we deserve better than that.

guest: an interesting question. multiple questions in there. if i think about how she asks -- sorry, i about am stuck on the last one. host: you can start there. back to thel go compensation side of the equation because that is always a question. bitwe can get into a little about how it is disclosed. the market for executive panelists is an executive -- is a competitive market. when they are recruiting, they are looking at what they need in terms of talent. where they are going to get it. do they develop it internally and nurture it through the system? do they acquire the talent? and there is a market for them. just like there is a market for mid-level management and entry-level positions.

it is based on competitive factors and companies have to pay what is required in the location that they are at and the scale goes up as you get higher up in the ranks of corporations. in terms of the corporate basedst rates, those are on profiles that the company puts together looking at people paying back loans. and the interest rates that are charged are questionable based on people's history and how they have historically pay their debts back. so. host: the corporate governance principles that we have been talking about, the ones that group,t out by the you can take a look at that on ciples.org.rin

john is waiting in cleveland, ohio. good morning. it is nice to call corporations people but they are not people. in the name of creating jobs and paying lower interest rates, -- profits dollars overseas are brought here. what did they do? tot of the money was used buy stock at inflated prices. membersy all the vote got the bonus. so this is the past experience. don't blame the high tax rates. as far as loopholes, it is not the politicians that created the loopholes. nothing is illegal about it. they create loopholes for selfish interests, after all, corporations are people and i am selfish too. it is human nature.

i would like to see all the , toerties brought overseas create shareholders, stocks, natural resources in protection of this country. i would like to see that day before i die. i am 80 years old. let's see what you have to say. guest: thank you. another series of good questions. i think it is interesting to ,hink about the principles here he said principles are nice but practices are different. one of the reasons that folks like us come out with principles is that every country -- every company is different. and you don't want to be specific in what to say, when size never fits all when they put out a rule. so principles give you the general operating guidelines that you can operate under and each company adopts to that

moving forward. the questions about overseas stock and buying tertiary socks, i think we are tangential to the point that we have to operate differently and that is what this group is trying to do. that is what we are trying to do. how companies are going to move forward. want to get in connie in new jersey, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say that i feel very sorry for this company. they are making america great. i want this german to explain to -- at 76ers old i used to how in 1976, i used to make more money per hour then my granddaughters with a college degree. -- a minimum per

hour and see. ok? thank you. host: connie with some questions about wages in this country. guest: yes, and there is a lot of push on wages. minimum wages are different across the country. concerning, it is massive. it is tough to live on minimum wage. and i forgot the caller's name -- host: connie. apologize, connie. i have lived on minimum wage. i worked my way up. i think it is going to be tough. know, i wish i had a simple solution as to how we will solve the debt problem in the united states with college loans and how companies and

individuals will try to move forward. but there was an article in consumer reports two months ago and the cover said "going to " orege ruined my life something to that extent. i fear for the individuals who have decided that it is the fact. and there are those who don't go to college and make it big in in technology or event a new product or service. folks who fear for choose not to go to college and who are then going to struggle for the rest of their lives -- hopefully they don't, but they will start out struggling, trying to survive on minimum wage. it's hard for companies to balance that out. you raise minimum wages, maybe they're looking at they have wages to return to my shareholders. it is a balance they will have to do in order to address the

owners of the corporation, the shareholders themselves. peter gleason is the president of the national association of corporate directors. thank you so much for your time this morning. up next, open phones. last 40 minutes will be talking about any public policy issue that you want to talk about. the phone numbers are on your screen. start calling it now. he will be right back. -- we will be right back. ♪ app makes it radio easy to follow the 2016 election wherever you are. it is free to download. that audio coverage and up to the schedule coverage for c-span programs.

stay up to date on the election coverage. means youadio app always have c-span on the go. dayunday night on cue and -- q and a, a documentary film director talks about his students. in high school in oklahoma. >> i am not the kind of teacher who will look at something that is not very good and say oh, that's nice. you did a nice job. say, what's not working? and eventually, every single one of my kids makes a better piece. eventually, the kids who do really well internalize this stuff. so i no longer have to say it to them. their own brain is saying it. eastern. night at 8:00 c-span's q&a. >> washington journal continues.

the: it is open phones in last segment of our program today. we can talk about any public policy issued you want to raise in our 40 minutes. surely is in alabama on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. the trumpto say to supporters, especially the democrats who support trump, i can't believe that the way president obama has been treated that they would ever support a republican, first of all. yesterdayeech he gave was smoke and mirrors. and office grit. it is exactly what he has been doing the whole time. not what he said yesterday. host: why do you say that?

why do you think it is smoke and mirrors? why don't you think you would follow through on the components follows housethat and senate proposals? things that have had support among republicans? caller: because i think that he just says things to make -- just to be in line with whatever someone is thinking at the time. and tomorrow, he may not feel the same way. i don't believe in anything he said. $7 tax plan will cost us trillion-$10 trillion and that is ridiculous. host: all right. cody is up next in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. abouted to mention this the minimum wage. i worked for a company for 26

years in new jersey. and i love them. my own business opened up in north carolina and my employees minimum wage was five dollars and change. -- a dollar increase and six months from that date, i got another dollar increase. and a $100 bonus. when it came to seven dollars middle wage, mcdonald's and burger king laid off people -- that can't happen. $.99 withg mac was fries and a soda back then. and minimum wage was seven dollars and change. now if is six dollars and change. what i want to know is, who made the money? host: what do you do now? caller: i am retired.

i am 70 years old. i opened up in the video business in 1985. i did very well but i took care of -- believe it or not, i never unemployment until 2005 when i sold it. i never had a person leave unless they were going to a bigger business. you pay minimum wage? work above minimum wage? minimum wage from the time they started for 30 days. after 30 days, they went up a dollar. after six months, they got another dollar raise. host: bill in florida, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on tpp there is too that

much indifference with the tpp. is going to compromise the middle-class of this country. no: two bargaining at all. and when you have corporations dragging the rules for the workers, without any impact from it distorts the playing field for the worker. thethis is going to enhance human trafficking and the exploitation of these poor and the third world countries that have no representation. no collective bargaining to begin with. and i just can't believe that learned people would do this, you know? i just can't believe

economically learned people would propose such an outrageous policy. as the tpp. have seen what nafta has done. and we are just doing it again. host: did you listen to the last guest? did you have a chance to hear him talk about corporate governance? caller: i heard him talk. he didn't answer have the questions. he was focused on providing educational information concerning corporations and banks. he talked about corporate governance principles and issues of transparency, to try to make corporations more accountable, what did you think? that to makeught them more accountable, you have to get oversight and the justice department to do something about it. they aren't going to just find take the fineill

and write it off because they know that they will get fined to begin with. they know they will get caught, it was a scheme. to doso they're not going it on their own? there needs to be a watchdog? caller: yes, where is the attorney general? cia, lawthe fbi, enforcement when it comes to these people? like diamond and calling and the rest of them out of wall street? watch max kaiser, he will explain it to you. he will explain exactly what is going on with the banking scheme and it has been going on and going on and there is no oversight. there is no enforcement. next in ocean grove, new jersey. good morning. caller: thank you.

good morning. of whiching to think thought i needed to come up with to the most cogent about what is going on in the campaign. i already speak to people on the theet in our town and say itsident will fix it -- amuses me that hillary clinton has a speech today opposite mr. trump, whose policy speech was beautiful, if i may say. hillary talks about throwing money at our schools. people need to be aware that hillary clinton's policy does not give anything to the private sector. which is the driver of the economy. she wants people to believe that the u.s. government is going to take care of everything by throwing money at it. -- kids in baltimore

and washington and in my home government hass. the highest capital per student -- which means given the money, and the schools are in horrible shape and kids can't read or write. and democrats say we need to invest more? , it is funny that in the 50 years since johnson's great society, the only thinks progressives have not seem to accomplish is any progress. mentioned donald trump speech yesterday, for our viewers who missed it, you can find it on c-span.org. hillary clinton will be heading to michigan later this week and we will be covering that as well on c-span. you can watch it when it happens on thursday.

up next in north carolina on the line for democrats. good morning. hillary clinton is a corporatist. donald trump is a fascist. me, as a black man, has to make a decision. side who want to give the people paying -- the corporatist has one interest and one interest only. they don't care who they hurt. but donald trump is grossly unqualified. people who follow him have race issues. that's why think more black people will vote for clinton. at least she is not a fascist. host: thank you. is primary day today in four states. connecticut, minnesota, vermont and mint -- and wisconsin.

we are joined now by theodoric meyer. we should start in wisconsin with all eyes on paul ryan's primary contest. how serious of the challenge is this today? i we going to see another area canter weep you? this primary has drawn a lot of attention but almost no one expects him to lose or come close to losing. advantage,ge cash nearly $10 million on hand in the campaign account compared to less than 200,000 for his primary challenger. numbersen were those dated? they would have to spend them by today if they're going to make their point before election day? guest: yes, as of last month.

but there is no indication that ryan has been spending heavily, which you would expect him to do if he thought he was in danger. with anve showed ryan anonymous lead over his opponent. host: as people are watching returns come in tonight, when are we expecting to know about the ryan race? guest: it sort of depends on how long it takes votes to count but i wouldn't be surprised if the ap called it shortly after returns start coming in. as you mentioned, people have paid a lot of attention to this of the, in part because primary leaders lost in virginia, which took washington by shock. if anything, i think the press has overcompensated here. treating someone who is really a longshot candidate as may be bigger than he has been. expecting au

comment from donald trump tonight? he certainly became a figure in the primary campaign in the last few weeks. guest: donald trump did weigh in a little bit, saying and ammenting policy and -- little bit. it appears that his spat with paul ryan is over. i wouldn't expect them to weigh in on behalf of someone who is getting blown out in the primary. donald trump has only officially endorsed in one republican primary in the house so far. in norththe gop rep carolina, one of the only pundits to lose the primary. so he doesn't have the best track record. host: let's go to the other four states where the races are happening. any incumbents in danger of losing their primary tonight? guest: no. this has been a pretty good year

for incumbents. incumbents defeating challengers. on the republican side there have only been 32 of lost so far and nobody has lost so far to 18 partyesque -- to a tea challenger. is also ae competitive primary happening in minnesota's second district. the retiring congressman john kline -- excited to be competitive. going to happen there tonight? how is the general election shaping up? guest: yes. there are a couple of different .pen seat primaries one of them is in minnesota where the republican congressman john kline is retiring. he has weighed in on behalf of one of the candidates as a late date but it is expected that jason lewis will be the favorite there.

and also, in wisconsin's eighth district where reid ribble is retiring, there is a seat the democrats see as a top target if they want any chance to gain the majority this fall. there are two republicans facing off there. for the chance to hold onto the seat. gallagher, as mike former marine and he is considered the favorite. mentioned democrats looking ahead to the fall with the possibility of taking control in the house. our democrats putting in place candidates necessary to take it vantage of a leave, if it develops? this fall, is the house in play? would certainly say it could be in play although they have shied away from making bold predictions. slim pass toery

retaking the house, in part because they just do not have candidates in a huge number of races. when republicans retook the house in 2010, they ran a huge number of candidates who had substantial resources and many of them won. democrats would have to prevail in almost all of the races that they are competitive in, to retake the house. a it is expected to be tougher climb for them. there are two primaries, as i mentioned. the one in wisconsin's eighth district today and the one in minnesota, the second district. where they will have to win in november if they want to have any shot at all to retake the house. theodoric meyer is a campaign pro reporter for politico. we appreciate your time.

thank you so much. guest: thank you for having me. note, c-span is covering paul ryan's primary return tonight. you can watch that tonight on this network. check our website later for the timing of when the program will start. claudia is up next as we continue with open phones. north carolina, a republican. go ahead. caller: yes. i have called in before, as you probably know. i am voting for donald trump in this election. i don't have any doubt about it. i think his economic plan is progressive for america. i think if we look at our country right now, we are in higher straits. why weare unemployed and don't see that is because -- is kind of amazing to me.

mr. trump has hired over 200,000 people with over 30 successful businesses. so he obviously has experience in running and managing successful efforts, economically. the other thing i wanted to say, a tiny bit off message is that some of his rhetoric i have not agreed with. but more frightening than that to me is the deceitfulness of haveemocratic party, who not told the truth about the forils, about the ransom the people in iraq. host: do you mean i r? ran? caller: yes. i am not misinformed.

i just misspoke. i just wonder if it bothers other people that we have a country where we are letting a lady run for president who should probably be indicted. and a president who has committed treason upon the american people. i don't want those folks in office. i am not voting democratic. i am voting for donald trump. he has hired a lot of people. i think he is a good american. i don't think he is a fascist. i think he loves america. thank you. red is only line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, am i on? all right. my look at it is that bush and cheney said roses would be

spread -- well, we don't have oil or nothing to show for it. obama takes over and things change and everybody seems to be at full employment now -- if you checked your facts, 70% versus 30%. host: are you talking about facts checked.org? understand how smart people can actually defend what he says. he doesn't say anything that he will back up. how are you going to pay for it? how are you going to do it? it looks like mussolini looked back when he folded his hands and looked up in the air and had that arrogance about him. going to dot nothing but make money for him and his friends. to cynthia ingo albuquerque, a republican. forer: yes, when i voted

obama, i had high hopes for him. thethen he brought in people to run his office and everything else and everything went corrupt. clinton is nothing but a corrupt person. i don't see how people cannot see that. something behind in the white house that she would like to have now? i will not vote for clinton. i wish people would think. planet bikeng this puppies with a bowl of soup. think. hispanic people in my state are and they live in

depleted homes. the clintons are up there, bringing in all kinds of money why -- involved in our country? what would help the poor people in new mexico? did you hear anything in donald trump's economic message yesterday that you think would help those people? caller: yes, i do. most of the people in new mexico , they don't have the money. i would like to see him bring in jobs that the common people can do. not everyone has the money to go to college. [indiscernible] not all working --

there are people that are poor who are struggling who have three or four jobs. people,know, the poor think of these people. of the rich people -- how did the clintons get so rich? why don't they got to bill clinton, maybe he has one of the e-mails.for doing the a puppet. host: i got your point. glenda is on the line, good morning. caller: good morning. i have been watching all morning. let me apologize for the appalling state of education in america. i would like to address a couple of points.

i watched the trump speech. 2008, hillary clinton wouldn't have had my vote. obama won the nomination. in view of the e-mail scandal that is going on with the ,emocratic party right now who's to say the same thing wasn't done in 2008 to skew the vote towards obama? because he had a blackberry? we have already had a tears of -- had eight years of the policies that hillary clinton vows to carry on. trump is abrasive and unfair in anal and argument. but he is different. i do believe the man knows economics.

will makeve that he changes that we can live with. the american't, public needs to be educated enough about our system of government to take the steps necessary to get rid of those politicians that are not doing what they were elected to do. host: would you ever vote for a third-party candidate? caller: yes, i would. if a third-party candidate had the two mainas party candidates, i absolutely would. but independents tend to examine issues individually more carefully. they don't agree with the whole party line and they may not agree with one individual. is a new third-party auction out there, as of yesterday. here is the story from the washington times -- evan

mcmullen launched a third-party presidential bid. a conservative alternative to donald trump and hillary clinton. the story noted that he is 40 years old and a counterterrorism expert who most recently served as chief policy expert. getting into the white house race out of a sense of duty and his profound disappointment with the two leading candidates. he worked for years as an undercover cia agent and randy clandestine operations before retiring in 2010. you can follow him on twitter and he also put out a statement -- his letter to america, trying to explain why he is running in that statement. highys "with the stakes so for our nation at this late stage in the process, i can no longer stand on the sidelines. our country needs leaders who are in it for the right reasons and to understand what make this

country the greatest on earth. leaders who will unite us and guide us to a prosperous future. beyond the dysfunction of the broken political system." joe is up next. for democrats. for c-span.k you i appreciate that, when people -- i don't even know where to start. i am a converted republican to democrat. inm a retired coal miner stateirginia, the richest as far as economic resources but we are at the bottom of every list. cole has been phased out. gas --u combine natural when you can burn natural gas for half the price and pollutants -- but to go to the

campaign that is occurring, hillary clinton is more of the same. and donald trump, the best way i could say it, appears to be insane. i worked and supported and gave money to bernie sanders. i believe in democratic socialism and i truly believe that with 500 military bases and $400 billion and an f 35 fighter, we need to get out of the war business and get into the american business. the economic speech that donald trump gave yesterday scares me. because it is like shades of ronald reagan. and this is where the trickle-down economics and the unionbusting occurred. can i ask, it sounds like you watched our program yesterday about the f 35. earlier today, we talked about

red states versus blue states and the governance of those states. some charts comparing the various social and economic trends in those states. in your state of west virginia, they are ranked second to last on medium income, life expectancy. second to last on the number of bachelor degrees or higher for those aged 25 or older. west virginia is ranked last. from last withh patents for millions. policies would help you in west virginia and help the state move up in the rankings? thing, well, for one there is no difference between democrats and republicans in the state of west virginia. they all adhere to the coal industry, the oil and gas companies.

and they don't worry about just a few of the poor people who get pulled along for the ride. west virginia is super rich but we get nothing for it. virginians, the coal miners especially, carried america through the industrial development of america. and now, because of all the bankruptcies in the coal companies due to the influx of natural gas, there are over 100,000 union coal miners who are going to lose their pensions and medical cards no later than mid-december because of the bankruptcies that have occurred, that no longer require coal companies to pay into the health and pension fund. as far as policies in west virginia, we need a diversified economy. i have lobbied for the past 10 years for a diversification of our economy. both interest in, west virginia

and washington, d.c. au might as well talk to piece of furniture, as talk to one of the congressman or senator's or state senators or delegates, as they are all in the hands of the political elite/corporations. look at who is running for governor in west virginia. a rich businessman who is a republican and a rich businessman for the democrats. if you put these two guys in a sack, if you didn't have a label as to what their party association was, you can tell the difference. west virginia has good people but we have lost people throughout my entire lifetime. when i graduated from high school, i left west virginia the night i graduated. i graduated sunday afternoon and left monday morning with $18 to

ohio and i got a job. when ronald reagan became president, he eliminated all tariffs. donald trump is right about one thing. we need tariffs. and another thing -- we need immigration reform. but we don't need to try to send all these people back. the people who waited in line to become u.s. citizens for the years, it's not fair to them. so the people who are here illegally -- host: i appreciate you sharing your story this morning. i want to get in a few more calls. roger is waiting in oklahoma city. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, i appreciate you taking my call. in the first place, donald trump -- i am 64 years old. i have been looking for someone who didn't have strings above him.

and he loves this country. and these people who say he is crazy and unhinged. that man could not have had the success if he didn't have cents about him. thing that heic laid out yesterday was making because regulation -- i was a truck driver and i have had the burdens of that. the obama administration has put more people out of jobs. and about the tax code that the democrats keep saying that it is richer peoplehe -- no. he is going across the board on cutbacks. -- here is the thing. of the status quo is against someone like that, he must be doing something right. to wan waitingo

in houston, texas. caller: good morning. i'm calling because i listen to donald trump's speech yesterday. he said he would do so much for the poor people. and what he's doing is fixing to make the poor people poorer. he talked about making the people who had businesses that have taken them overseas, bringing them back here, why bring the businesses he has back here? he talks about clinton being such a liar but every two or three minutes, he tells a lie. and he says something else. how can anybody believe anybody who tells the same thing one day and the next day, something different. host: we have a few minutes left before he take you to the center for strategic and international study, where the, not of the

marine corps will be talking. one other story we want to talk about, one of the parents of two of the americans killed in the benghazi attack are suing hillary clinton in federal court, saying the former secretary of state is liable. this story is in the washington times. the lawsuit blames the attacks ofpart because of her use the private e-mail server went u.s. secretary of state. accuses her ofo defamation and the affliction of stress and seeks damages from her on that score. there was no immediate public response from the clinton campaign. that story is out today. dora is waiting in farmington, new mexico. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. nut.nk donald trump is a i have always been a republican but i will not be this year.

he goes back and forth and i cannot relate to that. host: who did you support in the primary? if i were going to do anybody, it would be hillary clinton, because bill is in the back of her. she won't do obama. her husband is bill. two president in the white house. i won't vote for her anyway. host: is there a third-party that you like? tvler: i like the guy on the right now. the cia one. host: evan mcmullen. caller: i know. i have heard him already. i have heard what he has to say. i agree with him now. i like the way he talks. roger inwill go to

mckenzie, alabama. an independent. good morning. just a minute or two left of the program. caller: i'm glad you took my call. i battery is about to go out, have been watching you all day. and that is rare because people have to work. or thet guest you had, one before talked about how granted is in the blue states -- hundreds of millions -- one edge of million people moved to the south to get away from that. so they can die sooner. how stupid does he think the world is for him to say things like that? when the south got rid of the ofocrats, we got rid separated bathrooms and all that stuff. we got rid of all that stuff that the democrat party wants to do. pin one side against the other. that isn't the way it should be. i have a lot more to say. host: robert waiting in maryland.

good morning. caller: hi. i was just watching your show and i see the candidates and even some of the political appointees talking about cutting taxes here and cutting this person on taxes and this and that. how about we cut foreign aid to the other countries? we pay them billions of dollars. of our ownut any citizens of anything, we ought to cut the foreign aid we give other countries. syria won't even accept our foreign aid. how does that make sense to any of us? wages orll cut our whatever it may be -- add to our taxes. host: when you hear donald trump say we need to put america first, is that something that resonates with you? damn right.are

you go to japan or france -- of course they say their country is first and americans should say the same thing. america first. that is a capitalistic society and that is what we are. host: go ahead as we wait for this event to start at the center for strategic and international settings. and we lost drew. but that is alright because the program is about to begin. kneller -- neller will talk about the outlook for the u.s. maritime forces. ort is beginning in a minute two. great tuesday.