charented columnist mona and ruth marcus from the washington post. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] host: good morning. congress returns this week as house and senate conneries continue work on that republican tax bill, vowing to get it to the president's desk before christmas. in alabama, voters going to the poll on tuesday in that special election. we'll have the sexeaches the results here on the c-span networks with doug jones and roy moore. according to l.a.times.com, moore is ahead. it is sunday morning, december 10 and we want to begin with the issue of public issues, politicians. should there will be a higher standards for our elected

officials. 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats, for ndependents, 202-748-8002. thanks very much for being with us. inside the opinion page of "washington post," photograph of senator al franken, one of three public official who is resigned this week along with trent franks of alabama and john conyers of michigan. and also in "the washington post," nbc's matt lauer, roy moore of the alabama senate race, bill o'reilly of the fox news channel sch-- and harvey weinstein. will the federalist website have two different points of view that we want to get your opinions on this. first from denise in mccallister.

she wrote "a man's character is certainly a factor in the quality of his governors but when the sins are -- governance, but when the since are personal n nature, -- host: you can read the full essay by the federalist website. and there's this from georgey borman if a politician's personal life doesn't matter for voting, why even voice support for those values at all? going on to say i'm not only saying the choir boys are a squeaky clean record should be elected by the inconsistencies between values of leaders and what the rest of us are supposed to live by will grow more stark without enforcing moral standards. the right and left will become two sides of the same grimy

coin. who cares whether it comes up heads or tails? we'll all be paying the price in the long run. " let's get to your phone calls with maria, independent line. should there be a higher ethical standard for politicians? caller: well, good morning, steve. i think it would be wonderful if they get it up to the average american vote. before eric kander's last congress, he put in an amendment that still made insider trading possible for family and friends and people in congress. so they had that going for us. and they're subject to blackmail. if they're protecting each other because they know each other's secrets, then any foreign country or interest can come and up-end them to their will. so i feel that maybe what we ought to to is just make them subject to the same standards as an average american should be. and actually, they are supposed to be our servants.

so actually, we should be able to keep better watch on them through that. ok. thanks a lot for everything, steve. host: mayor ya, thanks so much. we go to ohio, outside of cleveland and our line for independents. good morning to you, bob. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good morning. caller: i am an administrator in ohio, high school principal. and in ohio, and i think in a lot of other states too, the department of education has adopted an ethical code of conduct standards for all educators from superintendents to cafeteria workers, anyone that works within a public school system that really does hold people that work with kids in public education to a higher standard. then there's progressive discipline if the code of conduct standard is broken, to the removal of a teacher, loss of their license. so i just wanted to add that to

the discussion that public educators, they are expected to operate at a higher standard. host: but how do we get there then, bob? i mean, you're on the front lines of this. caller: i think somebody's got to just step up and take a leadership role. and i know at least in ohio, the state board of education adopted the standards. they were vetted public hearings. and my feeling is i've been a public educator for 35 years and i feel we owe to it the public if we're going to supported with tax dollars, that we should operate at a higher standard. we're considered clem lars and we're role models for children and i expect the same from our lawmakers.

caller: when the citizen for women came out and two republican senators, susan sexols what's her name? lisa -- when they came outside and stood like giants, talking about al franken, i would have mind them more if they had came out in the same breath and said not only frank lynn should go because he did something that was wrong. they also should have said trump should have left because we have tape showing and listening to him saying he could grab women by the general also. he can kiss them without permission. and women saying he groped and

sexually harassed them. so i don't understand why these other guys can lose their jobs, can lose their positions, and we still got us the guy that has done the same thing and he did admit it. sarah huckabee said franken -- i mean, i'm sorry, give me a second. trump admitted that he did something also. so what does that look like? -- to the people around the world? you got other people that's taking the bullet for doing the same thing that trump said he did but yet we still got this man sitting up in the highest office, the highest office in the land. it starts from the top and work itself down. so i think those ladies should come back out again next week, hold another press conference and especially those two republican senators. if you can say franken had to leave, why can't you say trump?

this is why trump think he's above the law. host: kathryn from chicago, thank you for the call. donald trump admitted to back in 2016 was what he called locker room talk. but this morning, inside "the washington post," kathleen parker with this story. senator al franken demartyred and she says franken's alleged actions including one that was captured on camera were certainly objectionable but nowhere near the charges against roy moore and even men of other prominence. the story this morning in the opinion piece from kathleen parker from "the washington post." and on the senate floor, senator al franken announcing his resignation. >> serving in the united states senate has been a great honor of my life. i know in my heart that nothing i have done as a senator, nothing has brought this honor

on this institution. and i am confident that the ethics committee would agree. nevertheless, today, i am announcing that in the coming weeks, i will be resigning as member of the united states senate. i, of all people am aware that there is some irony in the fact that i am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of swal -- sexual assault sits in the oval office and a man who has repeatedly praised on young girls campaign for the senate with the full support of his party. but this decision is not about me. it's about the people of minnesota. it's become clear that together both pursue the ethics committee

process and at the same time, remain an effective senator for them. let me be clear. imay be resigning my seat but am giving up my voice. i will continue to stand up for the things that i believe in as a citizen and as an activist. the minnesotans deserve a senator who can focus with all her energy on addressing the hallenges they face every day. host: senator al franken announcing he will be stepping down in the coming weeks and the available on -span.org. and from another viewer saying that question should have been involved when kennedy was

president. now the question is asked who among us wishes to cast the first stone? and from another viewer saying politicians should represent the best of american values and are obliged to uphold them. finally this tweet saying you're asking about ethics? have you seen who is president? let's go to herb in orcharled park, new york, democrats line. ood morning. caller: your geography is as good as brian lamb when he did the morning shows. but anyway, let me make my point, michael. sexual harassment by politicians is certainly not acceptable and it's wrong. there's no question about that. however, the point i'd like to make is that it pales in to office holders or

higher levels of positions that lie to the american people, to take us into war such as the war in iraq. when many of them knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, but use that device to take us into a war that caused many american boys their lives to say nothing of the lives of the vacation. -- iraqis that to me, is a much greater sin but the american people aren't ready to demand the rez mation of those that commit that greater sin. but would put a heavier price on sexual harassment. host: herb, thanks for the call. if roy moore gets elected on

tuesday, al franken should stay put. and then there's this from michael saying politics in america has never had a high bar. i doubt there will ever be agreement on any firm standards. and from david roth. without double standards, we would have no standards at all. lewis is joining us from nebraska. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: yes. i'd like to know why if they're not put up for higher standards, why do they have a stress fund for when they do something wrong, they get paid with politicians' money? thank you. host: thank you, lewis. this is a survey from trri and takes a look at the question we're asking. whether or not there should be a higher ethical standard for politicians. as you can see from 2016, 70% of republicans agree that personal immorality is not disqualifying for politicians. 61% of democrats agree and 63%

of independents. a comparison back in 2011 where 36% of republicans agree with that point of view. 49% of democrats and 46% of independents. you can read the full poll at prri.com. from annapolis maryland, you're next. caller: my name is carolyn. wouldn't it be refreshing if we could have nominees running for office who actually could enter into the 18th century? am so tired of the g.o.p., old, white men telling us what to do and how to do it. if roy moore goes anymore to the right, he's going to fall off the planet. host: caroline, thanks for the call. let's go to ray in rockwood, tennessee, good morning. caller: morning. you know they talk about morals, lobbies?

-- lobbieses? - lobbyists? host: thank you for the call. ller: i wonder why men sit around and let other men harass their children, harass their wives and their family member and then they don't want to admit that they knew about it. you know, to be their cousin. it could be anybody. they just it and look. and they get up on their feet and say leave these women alone. because these women ain't did nothing to you. they don't want to do that. why the men don't want to stand up? why the men knowing this? because a lot of them to know

what happened to us. as women, all our women and their children. all right. that's all i want to say. host: thanks for the call from selma, alabama, voters in that state going to the poll on tuesday. doug jones with a $10 million war chest outspending roy moore, the republican candidate. here is one of the ads now on the air in alabama. >> i'm doug jones and i approve this message. >> alabama, there's a pattern. in a 2014 case involving a man convicted of abusing two underaged girls, judge roy moore disagreed and broke the opinion. in a 2015 case involving a man who pled guilty of raping an underaged girl, roy moore descented again and he was the only supreme court justice who signed with a felony convicted of sexual abuse of a child at a daycare center. court document, real facts. roy moore's disturbing conduct. host: one of the ads now in the air is from the alabama senate

race. and there's this headline. days before the election, roy moore disappears from the campaign trail. the story points out in the last few days before the december 12 election in alabama for the senate seat. the republican candidate has all but vanished from the public continuing a pattern of absence that took hold after allegations of abuse, assault, and misconduct with nine women surfaced in early november for republican roy moore. next is on our line for independent, anthony in beaumont, texas. should there be a higher ethical standard for public officials, for politicians? what do you say, anthony? caller: yes, sir. the thing is, not just republicans and democrats. it's everybody. there are people abusing money or taking advantage from women, they should be gone. if they're abusing the law and abusing funds or whatever, they feed to be gone. host: anthony, thank you for the call. our line for independents, william in los angeles. good morning.

caller: yes. i was calling because i was reminded by a statement that one of your callers said recently how congress members were able to participate in inside trading. and i was involved in politics 20 years ago in california. i talked to some creme -- congressmen and some legislatures in california and one of the things that came up in conversation which sort of blew my mind because i was not a politician was that in both congress and in a lot of state legislatures, when they pass a bill in those bodies, they include in the bill a statement to the effect that these laws do not apply to members of congress and in some places where they can do it to state legislatures.

in essence, accepting -- expecting themselves from the law which was like the lady said, why they could participate in inside trading and they could discriminate against minorities, handicapped people. and i wouldn't be surprised that one of the mechanisms that was used in this slush fund was that they may have had some such waiver on sexual harassment. so the people who were complaining of sexual harassments may have been able to -- would have been forced to settle because they would be fighting an uphill battle in a lawsuit if they had put that waiver into the bill and i don't see why they wouldn't have. host: william, thanks for the call. all republican line, forth lauderdale, florida. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. you know, i think things are

fwegget a little crazy with all of this. and i just like to say i have two young granddaughters and i wouldn't want them to subject it to so much the things like somebody having an automatic door lock in their office to sbrapt them. - entrap them. if a woman has a crush on a guy and he grabs her and gives her a kiss, she may like that. but if she's repulsed by the guy, well, that is going to be sexual aggression. let me give you another example. harassment asking about a day. we hear women complaining about

men being aggressive and constantly asking them out for dates. but yet you hear a lot of women who have very successful languages say well, he kept asking me, i said no. again, he never let up. and finally, i gave him a date and we ended up marrying. so, you know, there's a lot of stuff going on that instead of going crazy over it, maybe we ought to, you know, hear the whole story. now, that video that people like to use was trump. you know, this was in the context of the movie business and billy bush who was a young tike and trump seem to be thinking well, he was his big uncle and he was going to give him a man-to-man talk. and what proves everything in that video was falls was the video went south. because trump talks about when he sees a beautiful woman, you

know, he grabs her by the general also or kisses her or whatever he wants and everything. well, when they step off the bushes what's at the bottom of the steps? a beautiful woman. host: did the president cross the line with that language? caller: absolutely. but you see, you know, if billy bush had said donald, you're going to be president one day. you shouldn't be saying this. it's all in the context. host: right. it was 10 years before when he was still on "the apprentice." caller: exactly. and billy bush was a young guy who was being overwhelmed by the beauty of women. and he was trying to be his big uncle saying don't be so overwhelmed by these women. host: ok, paul from for the lauderdale. this is from a democrat of florida before al franken stepped down officially. she wrote the following. "as elected official, we should

be held to the highest standards, not the lowest. the allegations against senator franken describe behavior that cannot be tolerated -- host: of course, senator franken said he is resigning in the coming weeks. on friday, president trump endorgs roy moore. president trump: we need somebody in that senate seat who will vote for our make america great again agenda. [applause] president trump: -- which involves tough on crime, strong on borders, strong on immigration. we want great people coming into our country. building our military, continuing our great fight for our veterans. i love our veterans. [applause]

president trump: we want conservative judges like judge gorsuch on the supreme court. doing a great job, too. we want people that are going to protect your gun rights. great deals instead of the horrible deals. [applause] president trump: and we want jobs, jobs, jobs. so get out and vote for roy moore. [applause] host: the president in pensacola, florida, about 20 miles from the alabama border. he did not step foot in alabama he was in jackson, mississippi, yesterday, for part of the dedication ceremonies of the civil rights museum and spending the day in mar-a-lago in west palm beach, florida, which is where our next caller is from, scott. democrats line. good morning. caller: i think you have to distinguish in terms of these

ethical things. first of all, in terms of ethics and in regards to money and the public trust, absolutely. politicians need to be held to a higher standard. in terms of personal conduct, i believe that now that all of these things are coming out, you know, in the media, with media figures and with political figures like senator franken, yes, they had to be held to a higher standard from this point forward. what i have a point is what happened to senator franken. what he did happened before he was a senator and i believe that that should be treated differently. i believe that he should -- i do not think that he should resign. i understand that he is going to that. but what i would like to see him to is it would like to see him make himself a candidate in the special election that they'll have sometime next year. and i would like to see him run on a platform where he says look, i've learned from my mistake. and going forward, i'm going to

set an example for others to follow. i think that that would be a good thing. because, you know, people in this country deserve redemption and i've been following politics for over 30 years and i've seen a lot of good politicians, good people at heart. i've worked for some of them. they've made mistakes and they've paid a heavy political price. and we're losing a lot of good people both on the left and on the right. and we need to be careful about that. because it's hard enough to fete food people to volunteer themselves for public service. host: thanks for the call. and that special election would be next november. the governor will appoint his successor to al franken and then that seat will be up in 2018 and then again in 2020. so another senator is on the ballot. this is co-written by several. the president versus the presidency in a daily battle seeking to bend job to his will.

and here's part of what they write this morning. around 5:30 each morning, president trump wakes up and tunes into division in the white house's master bedroom. he flips on cnn for news. moves to fox and friends for comfort and sometimes watches msnbc's morning joe because it fires him up for the day. energized, infuriated, he grabs his iphone, sometimes he tweets while propped on his pillow. other times he tweets from the den next door watching in other television. less frequently, he makes his way to the ornate treaty room where he begins his official sun and official calls. as he ends his first year in office, mr. trump this redefy fining what it teens to be -- means to be office --

host: that's from the new york times's front page story. francis is joining us, independent line. first, what's going to happen on tuesday, francis? caller: oh, we are going to elect judge jones as our senate representative. and the reason we're going to do that is because actually, we are tired of sending unethical people to represent us from this state. it brings too much taj to our state. we've got the president of attorney general who is a former senate there now. and even when the strange guy that's presently serving for our seat in senate -- host: luther strange. caller: yes. his problem is, you know, he closed a lot of the casinos down

here in the state. and people were going to vote for history so he wasn't going to be a choice anyway. and doug jones has had an honorable career. he worked with howard hefner. and the thing about roy moore. i just want to say this. we have people in our own community who have gotten to the highest level as mayor. they have gotten to the highest level as representative. and those people are the same ones who have fathered children in our school and they were the principals when people were at the schools, when people would leave this state and take children, young ladies away. so we have a serious problem here in alabama. and we don't need to send another one who is a predator of children to our major representation around other state representatives in

washington. and i just want to plead with the people of alabama. please get out so we can start changing alabama and make it safe for all people and treat all people right. i know you haven't done it. i've been here for 26 years. and i know you never practiced that but start practicing it today. thank you. host: francis from selma, alabama. and this is a story inside the front page of "the washington post." the alabama election may test the rebrand of the state's economy. let's go to diane, democrats line from conyers, georgia. should there be a higher ethical standards for public officials? caller: i'm calling to tell y'all that they -- we got a senator for our dang self because he is a racist and sexist and i will -- indiscernible] caller: civil rights and voting rights. host: thank you, diane. let's go to this tweet from

north of boston. judge roy moore has been a loose cannon all of his life. his career in the senate will be the same. we read an excerpt from the federalist website which had two different points of view and this is one of the pieces at federalist.com. why it is justified to vote for a moral ply questionable politician. that's our question on this sunday morning. should there be a higher ethical standard? anita from chapel hirblings north carolina. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i think the country started off with a country at least from the caucasian community where the slavery was there and the rape of the younger women there were and the country still has a shadow of that in the conduct of the male population here and women are not weak but they're strong in other kind of way than

males. they shouldn't be used with whatever men wanted to be use with them because of their weaker status. and he corrected that in african-american community after slavery and i think we need to look at his example and maybe we can correct a lot of things and not totally punish people because of some things that they tone know how to treat fairly with other people. host: thanks for the call. this is from the birmingham news. stand for decency, reject roy moore. the editorial that appeared a couple of weeks ago. denouncing roy moore. if you want to describe the swamp, but character first when voting. let's go to nicky from berkeley height, new jersey, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a rhetorical question. host: ok. caller: i think it's grossly

unfair that alabama voters have to choose between a democrat or a pedophile. and that's my question. why should they have that problem? thank you. host: nicky from new jersey. and mo is joining us from los angeles. independent line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. it's really nice to talk to you again. you know, i'm trying just to add an international point of view since the problem is between man and woman and it concerns humanityity. i'm concerned with the american -- since before i went into school when eisenhower, you know, god bless him. he took the side of justice when

england, france and israel attacked egypt. i just entered the primary school. and since i was watching america in its interval during the cold war. anyway, this issue really i'm surprised that it was conducted by republicans who claim that they are the party of god and should value but they act, you you knowing like they are just trying to achieve they're own agenda which is unfortunately, what they claim of values, you know, christianity, you know. i'm religious myself. i'm not christian. --t's why i really surprised [indiscernible] that what they're doing

actually, you know, to put somebody like trump with his value and -- in the white house and then to have a majority in the country. i think those people not good people at all but represented and unfortunately, they are leading the war, you know. so i apologize for this. and, you know, in the name of humanity. host: emo joining us from los angeles. this is from eric ericsson. roy moore is going to win his senate race despite the democrats' phony claim of moral superiority. >> on roy moore's disturbing action, trump said there is a special place in hell for people who prey on children. i have no doubt. jeff sessions says i have no reason to doubt these young women. and richard shelby says he will

absolutely not vote for roy moore. conservative voices putting children and women over party. oing what's right. host: let me read to you what eric ericson is writing. why roy moore will win. he will win because democrats have done their best to make the accusations of sexual misconduct a partisan issue that it stood by with john conyers when it was convenient not tomato they stood by al franken until it was politically convenient not to their walkbacks from bill clinton is going to be opportunistic. roy moore will win his race. results coming in tuesday evening. the poll close at 7:00 local time and 8:00 on the east coast and the speech is expected later in the evening. marcia joining us from north carolina, independent line. good morning. caller: hi. so i'm thinking that the problem

with president trump wasn't what so much what he said because we know from rock stars, sometimes, that is the case. my problem with him is that he walked in on teenagers while they were undressed and you can't have this saying it happened before senator franken was in office. we have to have some kind of standards. and we have to go through the whole process of the whole investigation. senator franken should have used what's going on with him as a way to enforce saying before i leave, i want to make sure that anybody who is accused is investigated and not like oh, yeah, the majority said so. there's so much stuff out there that is in the majority's support and they said this happened and that's a bigger problem with all kinds of things that we have going on in our

court case. host: marcia, thank you. this is from kevin who has the following tweet. there should be a higher standard for our elected representatives. at present, the bar sits pretty low. and with regard want earlier caller, this is from chris. trump was acting like an you think toll billy bush on that "access hollywood" tape. my uncle never taught me to assault women. this year the silence breakers, the voices that launched a movement. there are five faces on the cover of "time" magazine and then one arm right here to symbolize those who remain anonymous but have come forward with claims of sexual harassment . next is shawn from hawaii, up early in the middle of the night. good morning, shawn. caller: good morning, aloha. that is a doing that is becoming

less and less and not taught in school anymore. so it is not surprising that we're getting representatives rom a generation that lack it. especially in our capital system where the media is saturated with sexual connotations. there is no surprise that sex sells and that the final thing i have to say is that someone sexual -- doesn't necessarily dictate the way he governs. thank you. host: this is from cw weekly. unstoppable. north korea prelaunches the missile defense debate. and inside, star wars, writing the $12 billion sequel. record spending is planned for a missile defense shield. but will it work? let's go to ellen joining us next from tennessee. democrats line. caller: good morning. i would just like to say that

the ethics of the whole country needs to be improved. we vote for and we re-elect people who reflect our ethical standards. so we need to perhaps re-examine our own. one thing that i can relate from my own background is when the anita hill and clarence thomas issue of sexual harassment became so prominent in this country. a lot of companies reached out to do sensitivity training. i was a trainer. and one of the things that i discovered is that what is sexual harassment fleektly is -- appreciately is different from the receiver than from the sender. one of the things that we have to think about relative to being civil with each other is to imagine that whatever you're saying to another person, imagine that your mother is

standing right there. al franken would not have containing that picture if his mother was standing right there. donald trump would not have made those comments about grabbing a woman's general also where his other there. and relative of the women, we should not be victims. we need be taught that we do have boundaries and there are ways to say i'm sure you did not intend that as it sound but i have to tell you that your comment made me uncomfortable. that begins when we are children and it should continue to when we go into the workplace. that environment should encourage that kind of exchange to not only show respect for each other, but to further good relation in the workplace. host: ellen from tennessee. by the way, this is from the hill newspaper. former democratic governor phil bretson is entering the senate

race as an open seat with the retirement of senator bob corker. and the cook political report moving that to a tossup. en is a seat bredes o pick up. we will have the debate and the coverage throughout the year next year from homestead, florida, carrie, you're next, independent line. should there be a higher ethical standard for politicians? caller: yes, sir, absolutely indeed. but the question should be who should set the standards? and i'm in a complete agreement with that woman that called from tennessee previous before me. the women should be the standard

and set the standard for those morals. and they should be the morals who should be leading and should be the ones who are leading in power. and that's not the case in government. -- that's the reason that [indiscernible] so, lead by example and to be selected as a leader should be by nature and by instinct, the women of the world. and all you women of the world should unite to take over. thank you. and i appreciate you taking my call. host: absolutely! thanks from homestead, florida. front page of the jerusalem post. another day of violence. although this headline, the violence is widespread in the palestinian protest but not as violent as predicted. next to that, the israelan prime minister defiant as he travels to the lion's den, a cold

reception as he travels to paris and brussels following the announcement of jerusalem being the capital of israel. joseph is calling now. caller: i feel like the president is trying to normalized pedophilia in his nazi way. by backing mr. moore. that's all he's doing. hello? host: yep. you're on the air, joseph. we're listening. caller: well, that's what i have to say. host: ok. thanks very much for the call. our phone lines are open at iphone fonlte that's our line for democrats. and 202-748-8001 for republicans. want to share with you the perspective from the "wall street journal". and he where is the following. donald trump campaigned on a pledge to make america great

ghent as president, he is doing the opposite. he is making america smaller than any time in the last 100 years. the trump administration has all but abandoned democracy promotion. this piece is available at wsj.com. -- host: janet is from florida. caller: i'm a democrat.

75 years old. i didn't like what those democrat women polled. i think another woman from florida yesterday said the same thing that the congresswomen, the rising stars the bully girls. al franken, if what he did and that gal with that photo, which was all mimic. he wasn't grabbing her physically. she's traumatized. oh, my god. 20 years later. give me a break. this was a move i didn't like to see. and i didn't like seeing the democratic men jumping on board with them. they were bullied. these women are bullying them. and that does go on. i've been in the business world in college. there are women that can be just as nasty and get even as men. what the gal said from north carolina about president trump. the difference between him and roy moore is roy moore was trolling for young girls.

that's the pred tomorrow. that's the m.o. of trump, 1999, howard stern, another sleesy guy interviewed him. d i saw it on tv a few weeks ago. he said he could walk in on these little girls, some of them 14 the contestants half naked and he was leering about it and joking about it. ok? that's the bottom line. host: janet from florida. the weekly standard, you're fired. what happens if president trump sacks robert mueller? the piece by stewart taylor. it's available at weeklystandard.com. on our republican line, vern is next from concord, north carolina. good morning. your take on all of this, vern. caller: yes, sir. good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: good morning. caller: i just read a couple -- had a couple of comments. the gentleman that just called in, referencing nazi and trump.

i like to make a comment about the nazi term used by liberals and progressives and democrats. et me address their two icons. that's stalin and mao. that's who killed over 100 million of their own people in the name of socialism and communism. host: you're saying that they're the icons of the democrats? caller: that's right. host: how can you equate the two? i don't know of any democrat that would condone -- caller: how can you equate trump to communism? host: but you're trying to equate the death of millions of soviets and to the democrats? caller: yeah. the democrats say republicans icon is always nazis.

i'm going to reverse it around and compare their light counterparts. host: what democrat is saying that about the republicans? who specifically? caller: virtually every one of them. the one that just called in. host: ok. we will move on to sandra in massachusetts. good morning, sandra. caller: good morning. i'd like to know where donald trump can even measure anything, especially when he married somebody that was just being born or less than his daughter's age? so he married that. and on top of that, where are the mothers there? i would like to see his mother, her mother see the results. on top of that, i want to know hy $15 billion isn't being replayeded that they took from our government. and we people have to do without. they take our money and say it's

ok to become bums. it's wrong. host: thank you for the call. this is from james who said do you really think we don't know how your swampers are? ethical standards? what a joke. there is a weekly news conference. paul ryan was asked about republican roy moore and to the alabama senate race. >> last month you called on roy moore to drop the race in alabama. given that he hasn't, are you comfortable to leave that decision up? >> my position hasn't changed. i think he should have dropped out. just because the polling has changed doesn't change my opinion on the matter. i stand by what i said before. host: house speaker paul ryan if you're just tuning in or listening on espn radio, we're asking you whether or not there should be a higher ethical standard for politicians based in part on two competing points of law that are available on the federalist website. diane from upper darby, pennsylvania.

good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: fine, thank you. caller: i'm calling about the ethical standards of the politicians. host: yeah. go ahead. caller: they should hold a higher ethical standard than anyone else. they are running this country. and at this point, they're running this country down into the ground. host: we'll go to frank next on the republican line. good morning. myrtle beach, south carolina. caller: good morning. , concern is 20 years ago donald trump was a democrat and 20 years ago, roy moore was a democrat. and roger moore -- host: roy moore. caller: and during that time and none of this ever came up until, you know, the republicans take control of the house and trump gets elected. and as far as the tape recording on the bus, that was a private

conversation. and everybody's making a big deal out of that. cast t her who has no sin the first stone. host: do you believe -- you said roger moore. you believe roy moore? caller: he hasn't been convicted of anything. this is something that's pure hearsay. and we don't have any -- i mean, we got all these women who have come forward, but the democratic party is the one that has all of a sudden, want to bring this out. and now they want the women, they're going to try to flip this and this is what the the cravaack is doing with al franken -- dem accuratic doing, with al franken and the other illinois -- host: but should senator franken have resigned? caller: no. e shouldn't have resigned.

you can't have two different -- i mean, when -- and i'm not saying it doesn't happen at work. but you got to speak up. you just can't let things go for 20 years and then all of a sudden, come up and say hey, he did this to me. you've got come forward and say hey, hike the lady said from tennessee. you let him know. hey, i don't like that. that's not appropriate. you know, and that's what women need to get the power boat. and i agreement. there are a lot of women that are gaining economic power in this country. so now we're divided -- we're going to be divided among sexes now. you know? the division in this country has not been caused by the republicans. it has been caused by the democrats. host: frank from myrtle beach, south carolina. angela from virginia. outside of washington, d.c., republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. and i'm calling about the ethical standards. you know, women, they dress

provocatively all the time, even when you look at the wlsm women who do the weather. they dress so provocatively, they provoke men all the time. and then whenever men being men act up on it and they shouldn't, when they act up on it, the these same women, they don't dress like this once. they dress like this day in and day out all over capitol hill, all under media. look at fox news. host: so you're blaming the women? caller: i'm not just blaming the women, the men are responsible too. but the women are not innocent. and to pretend like they are is just foolish. these women know exactly what they're doing with the way that they dress, the way that they act the way that they smile. the way that they look at men and they're very provocative. host: what about the accusations against roy moore and 14, 15, 16-year-old girls? caller: again, they're just accusations. i don't know anything about that. i'm not there. i don't know anything about it.

but i do know what i see constantly every day where women just doing the weather, the way women are constantly being provocative and then run around and pretend like they're innocent. host: to take your point, even if you take your point at face value, does that still make it right if men do that? if they abuse women? caller: i just told you that it's not right but i'm just saying the men aren't the only ones to blame. women have a lot of blame on this as well. host: we'll go to new york city next. abe, democrats line. good morning. caller: great. let's talk about ethical standards of roy moore. forgetting these sexual predator charges. he was twice removed as chief justice in the alabama court by the conservative alabama supreme court because he refused to follow the institution. so even -- constitution. even before these charges, he is one of the most unethical politicians to run for office and he shouldn't be rewarded. let's talk about hypocrisy.

republicans have no answer for that, of course. host: abe, thank you. yes, says jaclyn smith. there should be a higher ethical standard for all politicians. we'll go to angela in colorado springs, colorado. good morning on our line for independents. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: sure. caller: so, yes, there should be an higher ethical standard for our leaders. they are put in very precarious situations. and when you carry yourself in a manner that is concerning or if here are things out there that question your integrity, when you get into a position to make a difference for this country, people will not value your opinions. so while there is a population of people who respect roy moore and see him as a person that will press their values ahead, the truth of the matter is he is something of a rebel and it is going to be very difficult for him to effect change when he

goes to congress. people will not listen to him. he comes into -- he's putting himself in a tenable situation at best. and so, yes. our leaders need to live a life that is of a higher standard. so when they go overseas, whether they do something within our country, the people will value and respect their opinion. thank you. host: angela from colorado for example inside the "new york times," arctic drilling, stymied for decades makes a surprise return in the tax bill. one of the deal-breaker or deal maker is who added that to the tax bill now making its way to conference. they are working on similar plans, but not identical until they reach that agreement. we will be covering that for you on c-span. from utica, michigan, independent line. good morning. caller: my comment is it think that they should be higher, you know, held to a higher standard. but the thing is most of the men in congress and in the senate

are older white men. and they're making the rules on it. and a lot of it is coming out just so we can be politically correct. as far as al franken goes, yeah, he's paying for the sins of clinton and all the derges i don't think are much better than the republicans. the only difference i've got say is that the democrats are admitting it. the republicans are lying about it and saying well, this never happened. just because they lied it never happened, it never happened. so, you know, we've got a long ways to go. and, you know, i've got a lot of family members that are pro trump and they actually believe that this man never did nothing. they don't believe them. they think everybody is after roy moore just because who he is. and no. it's not -- we have to step up and we have to do a little bit better than what we have been doing in the past. because more and more women are going to get in congress and in

the senate. things have to change. but i think as far as al franken, i think it got a little overboard but he was going to be effective. he had to go with conyers. it was going to be a distraction. so, but if roy moore gets in there, i don't think that he's going to do the republicans any good at all, you know? that's my comment. host: front page of "the washington post," the fires as they continue to rage in southern california, they died down somewhat yesterday. the winds according to "associated press" expected to pick up. those santa ana winds, more than 150,000 acres damaged because of the brushfires now in six parts of southern california around los angeles and san diego. beth, you get the last word on all of this from north carolina. republican line. should there will be a higher ethical standard for politicians? caller: yes. and let's start with hillary clinton. let's have all the news outlets

play the tape, the recording of her saying she never knew how easy it was to defend a rapist of a let's get the truth about the washington post, which was bought by the richest man in the world who sent his minions down to after -- alabama. so-calledut this allegations against roy moore. the real issue is, do we want rich liberal white men determining who will sit in the senate of our united states? that's what this is really about. host: what would you say to those women who came forward saying when they were teenagers that roy moore tried to date them?

are they lying? i am saying why after the alabama primary election did these women come forward? why not before, when there was a chance to elect another republican? that exists, there are serious doubts about how these women are being manipulated. aboutare all allegations things that happened 40 years ago. this man has run for many elections. why now? why after the primary election? host: we appreciate it. should there be a higher ethical standard for politicians? we are going to turn our attention to the issue of immigration.

randy capps will be join us. later, our sunday roundtable on the alabama senate race did pat roberts from kansas is the chair of the agriculture committee. we spoke with him about roy moore and al franken. at c-span.errors on c-span. despiteanken step down, saying he one of the ethics committee to do an investigation. do you believe a member of congress can get to process through the ethics committee? >> yes. we have been through several cases. deliberate, we also expedite as best we can.

we are bipartisan. it is three and three, probably the least partisan committee in the congress without question. i think each member does a very good job. it is confidential. when we reach a decision, we make it public. the committee has already made a statement that we are investigating senator franken. >> without going into areas i know you can't discuss, your job could get harder next week if it turns out roy moore is elected and you have someone who is accused of molesting teenage girls in your midst, can you talk about how this compares to other moments? how hard is it to grapple with these issues? >> the committee has always been involved with people who transgressed the rules.

there has been a complaint. the committee receives a lot of complaints that are simply dismissed because they are without merit. with regard to any person in the body, with regard to judge more, that's a decision it's going to have to be made. host: newsmakers with republican senator and chair of the agriculture committee pat roberts of kansas. you can listen to it any time on our free c-span radio app. join us here is randy capps, the director of research for the migration policy institute. guest: we are a nonprofit dedicated to research on migration worldwide. host: let's begin with illegal border crossings, which are down

over the last year. is that a result of the president? guest: the numbers are down to the lowest level since 1971, when i was six years old. there is a long-term downward trend in mexican apprehensions at the border that started 10 years ago. we saw a lot of people coming in from central america over the last few years, that is down as well. some of that you can attribute to trumps new policy. host: will there be a border wall? guest: there already is a barrier. miles out of the 2000 miles of the border. most of the border is rivers, howtains, open desert area much more of the wall they will build, that will be up to congress. host: one of the issues holding

up the spending plan is a two-week extension, they want to resolve the docket issue. -- daca issue. they say that is going to be a dealbreaker. what does congress need to do? september, the trump caministration set the da program for six months. people could no longer renew. in march, the first group of people. losing their benefits, their work authorization, their protections from deportation. those benefits last two years. until march of next year until 2020, people will lose benefits. congress has to work by march. host: if they do not act? guest: we will see people losing their jobs and we might to see

people being deported and some people having to drop out of school because they can't afford it. host: are you looking at on the republican side to reach this agreement? guest: senator flake's been a strong proponent of immigration reform in the past. he stood up for daca as part of the tax bill. senator rubio has been involved in this. some of the republicans from florida in the house of also dream orpport for a legislation so that it doesn't and. host: this is what sarah huckabee sanders said on the issue of order crossings that are now down and what that means for the debate over a border wall. >> it shows the effectiveness of the trump presidency. it's another success story as we wrap up the year. it is something that could be looked at and i think needs

responsible immigration reform. we still need to look at all the ways we can protect our national security. host: the white house press secretary, your reaction? guest: i do think as we were just discussing, we are at an almost historical low of border crossings. these a sign that policies through the past administrations have brought numbers down. i don't actually think the border crossings are the biggest issue. more people come on valid visas and overstay them than cross the border illegally. we are not talking much about that issue. some people are coming through ports of entry along the border and sneaking in in vehicles are using false documents. the department of homeland security is addressing that, but that is an issue. the border wall to me as

symbolic, it's an easy thing, it's something visible. it doesn't really address the problems. host: let me put on the screen some other numbers. among the officers, 23,000 officers including 1000 officers year, more than 19,000 border patrol agents including another 522 hired this year. do you see this trend continuing? guest: i did some research and the 1990's when there were 8000 border patrol agents. now we have almost 20,000. we have more than doubled that in the last 20 years. that has a lot to do that a number of people crossing the border is coming down. there is more technology employed, more sensors and cameras. that has been very affect it. past the point, you only need so

many agents. it is often difficult to train in higher new agents. the border patrol is at some difficulty in hiring recently. there has been debate over the stringency of the kind of tests and lie detector tests they may have to take. that has deterred people from taking those jobs did it's not that easy to grow the border patrol much beyond where it already has grown. host: our guest is randy capps from the migration policy institute. we have a line set aside if you are here as an illegal immigrant. let me ask you about these docket recipients. who are they. ? do they contribute to the economy? guest: by definition they have

to have entered the united states as children. they have to have been here since 2012. they are integrated. they went to school here in the united states. they know english. they have to have a high school degree or still in school. many of them to go to college. some of them do not. we looked at this. we did some data analysis and found the service industries, public administration office jobs, retail sales jobs are the most common for daca recipients. there are professionals as well. certainly, they do contribute to the economy. many of them are still in school. it's a small share of the workforce, less than 1% area -- 1%. host: good morning.

welcome to the conversation. commentfour i make my about immigration, could you the laws of what marriage and alabama are. go, you couldl to pursue someone, not sexually. i'm not condoning anything like that. if the democrats don't like immigration enforcement, when their family members start dying , that's my comment. host: that's a carryover from the first hour. think there been a number of high profile shootings of american citizens by immigrants, undocumented immigrants. they are relatively rare.

there been mass shootings by american citizens. i would not want to characterize the total immigrant population by the actions of a few individuals. that said, it is a problem when familye someone in my hurt by an immigrant, i would be very upset about that. still, the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants are hard-working people, they do not have criminal records. host: we have two tweets. at can send this a tweet guest: this was the last time congress addressed the issue of

people who are in the country illegally. there were about 3 million at that time. we have 11 million now. clearly, it didn't solve the problem in the long run. i think the more important question is why do so many people come and say -- state. they get jobs -- stay. we don't have an adequate system of jobs for people. we don't have at the high skill and or the low skill and. that has been driving employment into construction jobs, manufacturing jobs, service jobs. i do agree, the 1986 law didn't work very well. it's an issue we could address in the last 30 years. 30 time -- years is a long time to do nothing by it. this ideast say that

that some people are unauthorized or illegal and others come in legally, that's a relatively new thing in the last 100 years where we have had a system that regulates immigration with some people coming in and others exceeding that. in the 18th and 19th century, people came much more really. i don't know if that term applies. historically, it is true that the vast majority of people in this country or not indigenous to the continent did most of us came from europe. asia,in america, or africa. we almost all come from someplace else. host: randy capps is from the migration institute here in welcome to the program. caller: thanks for taking my call.

i commented while i was calling in, a lot of people in the country don't see it. there are 800,000 illegals in this state alone. i don't know if he is a being counter or what. i would like to see him go down to the border. realize, there are thousands killed by these illegal immigrants. my family has in this country 200 years. we needed to stop this years ago. we don't need any more migration. , the: i think that's true perspective of people on the border is different than people

in washington. we are thousands of miles away. i agree with that. i have spent some time to the border with border patrol. i spent a fair amount of time doing order research in texas. i am well aware that the people who live in those areas have a different situation. i still think there is a fair amount of exaggeration going on. there is some violence with border crossings. there are some unauthorized people who have committed crimes. i wouldn't say it's thousands and thousands of people. a graduate oft is the university of texas. good morning. is with theuestion when these people

are coming into the united mandatory have no responsibility as far as them performing a service to the country. said, we allman came from different countries weo the united states did these protected the rights, gave these immigrants the right to come into the united states. today, our military is becoming less capable of protecting the rights. we having them do

some service to our country if they want to remain in the country? guest: i think that's an interesting idea. if you look at the history of it during the civil war, a lot of european immigrants were drafted as soon as they got here. there were large numbers of immigrants in the military. there are still some now. i do think conceptually that's part of what is in some of the bills in congress right now for legalizing the dreamers. there is a way that people can through military service get a green card or alternatively through completing higher education or working. we have a relatively small army compared to our total population. it is expected that immigrants who legalize will have to do something. right now, most of them are in

school are working. if they are contributing to society, they are performing important jobs and services. there is a broader conversation we could have about whether we should have an all voluntary military or not. i think that's a different conversation. host: we are talking about the enforcement of immigration laws. lynn is joining us from arizona. caller: good morning. mexico inting different states, a person can bump into a lot of supported mexicans -- deported mexicans. american to some extent. it shows they lived in the united states worried i asked them how they got into the u.s. the majority of who i have

bumped into have said they got indian nation on the arizona border. they refuse to have border patrol stop anybody from coming across. they say they have relatives on both sides of the border and they are an independent nation and the border patrol has no right to control them. no one is speaking about this. i'm quite sure the congress people know about it and the heads of homeland security know about it. it's about 80 miles of the border. host: are you familiar with this? guest: yes. i have been to the reservation. it is a difficult case. it is basically native american nation that is split into by the

border. people from the nation believe they should have the right to travel back and forth freely, which makes it difficult to distinguish who was a member who should be able to and somebody else who is trying to enter illegally. they do patrol there. it's a very remote area. it's very far from any major urban center. it is one of the most difficult places to patrol. one of the big things the border patrol has in relatively close this is working in cooperation in that area with local authorities. host: we have one line set aside for those in the country as an illegal immigrant. kenny is joining us from maryland. caller: good morning. host: how long have you been in the u.s.? caller: i have been here about six years.

host: how did you arrive? caller: i came through the with someone's documents. host: go ahead. comment and the question. all, i will tell you about myself. married to a u.s. citizen. i have four u.s. citizen children. they are all boys. i have two businesses. they are doing well. business.ble to go on that is the background of myself

where we ares today with the daca program, the first thing that everybody legal immigrants are able to send our kids to college. you can imagine what that would do with startups. think i just mean to kenny is a great example, there are a lot of people in the unauthorized immigrant population that have been here or 15 or 20 years that are married to u.s. citizens. usually they have children born here. they have u.s. citizen children and they may have great opportunities here.

they may be able to go to college or become professionals and do great things, just like the children of other immigrants, just like us. we have emigrant forbearers. in my case, it was grandparents from sweden. immigrants tend to do very well. unauthorized,is california research has shown this is a barrier to their progress. they are less likely to graduate from high school and go to college. unauthorized parents tend to not have good jobs because of their legal status. they live in fear. they have more difficulty raising their kids. the kids are more likely to be poor. having a parent without legal status is a risk factor. host: let's go to walt in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: a couple of things

bother me about this. i raised my own children. people don't want these illegals to come in here. take nancy pelosi. she has a hotel. why doesn't she put the legals and their? a billionns have dollar stash fund. they could do it here and democrats and republicans, why don't you give your name and address and tell them you're willing to take a family and support them. why the hell should i support these people? i'm not against them. they don't along here. talking, you make a good point. nancy, where was she the day after that trial? neither was schumer. that's my remarks.

host: thank you from pittsburgh. true, many of the politicians including the president have businesses that employed unauthorized immigrants. benefit offset labor. i would say and remind the law,r that under u.s. unauthorized immigrants can't get public that if it's. they are not eligible except for public education for their children. they pretty much have to work to support themselves. they are paying taxes. they are not eligible for the same public benefits. raising theirare own families without support from the rest of us. host: let me show this tweet.

bob is joining us from michigan. go ahead. caller: the first thing, what are the penalties to employers for employing illegal labor? i never see any prosecutions. if you could put a few of these ceos and bosses in jail, that would stop this cold area -- cold. i want to take issue with the 11 million number. i would put that number closer to 25 million myself. why aren't we putting these guys

in jail? wouldn't that be a much easier route? a lot fewer people to go through. it would be much simpler. i think it would be more effective than putting a wall up. guest: the caller is right. i think the most effective thing that could be done would be to fully enforce unauthorized immigrants can't be employed. it's not as easy as it sounds. that was part of the 1986 law that we discussed earlier. it hasn't worked for a well because it's based on paper documents. people just have to show them and they can forge them. the only way an employer could be fined or penalized would be if they knowingly have fraudulent documents. that does happen from time to time. employers have been fined.

now there is electronic verification, where the documents are online and harder to forge. some states have a mandatory use of that for all businesses, not all use it even though it's mandatory. some of them just don't abide by the rules. people can still forge the online documents. you have to prove someone with a fingerprint or facial recognition to make it foolproof. that's been a sticking point. if you think about the u.s. economy, it's very open, it's not a regulated economy like others in the world. we are moving in more of the deregulatory environment now. be an imposition on business. it would be a major imposition.

it would run against the grain of less regulation of business. caller: our topic is the border wall and immigration. our guest is randy capps. we are going to tennessee. you can get more information for logging onto the website. caller: good morning. i've got a couple of things. cannot fix the world's problems. they are coming up through mexico in this country. mexico needs to stop them at their borders and we wouldn't have to put up with so much at hours. when this guy says they are not getting any assistance, that is not true. guest: the point about people come up through mexico is important.

the unauthorized border crossings from mexico are way down. it's not really mexican migration anymore. other's migration of groups that come up through mexico. cooperating with mexico is important. that's one reason why the wall is not such a good idea. we have made a lot of gains working with mexico and assisting them. we are helping them learn how to find people in their country that are trying to come to the u.s. and process them if they have valid asylum claims. i think it's in our best interest to cooperate with mexico in order to deter more illegal migration. host: louise, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to reiterate again that i think there is a racial

bias in this. so many people come with pieces that overstay. there is not much fuss about that. people coming from a hispanic company or black or any other race, there is a bias there. i don't understand the far right evangelicals who supposedly are so christian and they will turn around and can be so cruel to immigrants. these people came because they want a better life for their children. criminalshem all as is wrong. you hear this all the time. i don't understand the philosophy behind the far right. they are hypocrites because of the attitude they take. i fully support helping the daca kids. host: thanks for listening on

c-span radio. is if you philosophy take it face value of rule of law. i can understand that. people want to know the country is secure. that has been the case since 9/11 especially. we want to know people are following the rule of law. i can take that face value. most of the focus has been on basically, which is mexico and central america without much focus on visa overstays. that's not to say there isn't focus on visa overstays area homeland security has been trying to fix that and find out if people are leaving the country, which is a difficult technical task. the trump administration has said visa overstays will be a priority of forstmann.

-- enforcement. about 90% of the people who are deported are from mexico. host: good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and for taking my call. can you hear me? ok. gentleman hasthe of need fors a lot immigrants. i would like to make an observation as a first irish-american. was an1960's, there immigration law change to keep

people out of the country. have irish, welsh, scottish, french, italian, german, -- host: was that the case? guest: if you look at the middle part of the 20 century, there were a lot of immigrants coming in from different european grounds. if you go earlier than that to from920's, people coming ireland, from italy, from eastern europe, there was a lot of discussion of limiting that the way there is discussion about limiting latin america now. congress passed a very strict law that severely limited the number of people coming from anywhere in the world except western europe. in 1965.was changed

that was the last time we did a major overhaul, the two years ago. ast family-based system opposed to national origin taste is what led to the rapid growth of the number of immigrants from all over the world we have now. host: let me follow up, you think the wall is necessary? guest: i really don't. i think the wall is already there. some additional fortification. a lot of the border, the natural barriers are sufficiently difficult to cross and it would make sense to put a wall everywhere. expensive,k it's some of the other things the callers of suggested like employer verification make more sense. host: do you think it will be built? guest: as i said, a portion of

it already is built. it is going to be up to congress to decide not only how much money there is to build more wall, but how much there is to hire border agents. host: randy capps, thank you very much for stopping by. we appreciate it. the link is available through www.c-span.org. the washington post editorial-page editor will be with us. next, we want to open phone lines. once on your mind the sunday morning? at.can be in dealing ♪ can send us a tweet

@cspanwj week on the talknicators, advocates about net neutrality and regulating the internet like a public utility. >> 50 regulates broadband. it takes broadband oversight out of the fcc entirely and gives it to the federal trade commission. eliminates the rules against internet service providers blocking, throttling internet traffic. it allows for fast lanes. they could charge providers to get to the consumer faster with better service. this is really important, it prohibits the state from

protecting consumers and cap petition. three federal statutes that protect consumers. it's the sherman act, the clayton act, the federal trade commission act. the -- it regulates the economics. it does not permit states attorneys general from suing internet service providers if they harm consumers. communicators. >> washington journal continues. host: we want to hear from you. maurice is going to begin in new orleans. what is on your mind? i heard someone say

earlier they are not on public assistance and not taking our tax dollars. that's just wrong. i found out ways they were able to circumvent. they use fake social security numbers. they are getting around the system. they are using everything they can to take our tax dollars for their own benefit. i think diversity is a great thing. there are laws in this country and we have to follow them. we will go to teresa in virginia. because iam calling heard the commentator talking that they don't get benefits and

they do. instead of challenging the citizenship laws, if you are in this country illegally and you have a baby, your baby is legal and they have rights to services that our children get. i want to know, one of the going to start challenging the citizenship laws? host: from the front page of the new york times, trump versus the presidency. a daily battle. this lengthyom article, the president spends as much as eight hours a day watching television. host: martha joins us in virginia. welcome to the conversation. caller: i was wondering if the people have recognized with the immigration law dealing with latinos, especially mexicans, do

wasle realize that mexico here and european whites took it over? they were already here. the jobs that people are complaining about that these immigrants are taking over, they can't take jobs if the trucks don't pick them up. the trucks are being driven into factories owned by the big industry picking fruits investable's. i don't see many whites or jobks jockeying up for that for taking care of children for $200 a month. think about this. host: this past week, al franken afterces resignation

eight women came forward claiming they were either groped or harassed or touched inappropriately by him. he had these remarks. the important part of the conversation we've been having the last few months has been about how men have used their power and privilege to hurt women. i am proud that during my time in the senate, i've used my power to be a champion of women. that i have earned a reputation as someone who respect the women i work alongside every day. another has been a different picture of me painted over the last few weeks, but i know who i really am. host: that was senator al franken. we have open phones. good morning. caller: good morning.

i want to talk about the immigration deal. there are over 200 million white people in america. they are constantly complaining about other races coming into the country. like the other lady was saying, this was their country before us. what are the white people afraid of about other races of people coming in? anding about holding a wall taking jobs. a loan at an get bank without having to go through redline districting. thank you. that's my comment here it -- comment. host: we are looking at the missile defense program. the price tag is 12 ellie and dollars. -- 12 billion dollars.

norman is in oklahoma. good morning. caller: i would like to bring up the fact that there are consequences no one is even talking about. there are 200 or so white people in america and the mexicans were here first. their talking points, when these kids come over and our losses they have to go to school. they don't have immunization. we have diseases we worked hard to eradicate and they are coming back because these kids are put in there with kids and no one even talks about that area that -- that. the money the ghost of that wall is minute compared to what we are hemorrhaging.

that againstsaying the latinos or the blacks. i don't have anything against anybody. i have black people in my family. all of that clouds the issue. it's not about the color, we are americans. there is not another country that will allow people to come in and squat. you've got to take care of them. there is no country like that. it's been taken as weakness. the democrats pander. if the illegals wouldn't vote democrat, they wouldn't be going out on a limb like they are. host: we will stop there and show you the cover of the weekly standard.

what happens if trump sacks robert mueller? let's go to mark in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. this is my comment. president obama recently made a comment about comparing trump to the y marr republic. i want to make this comment. president obama was responsible for shipping pounds of cash to iran. iran has vowed to annihilate israel. he should watch his comments area he is the one who behave more like. he supported a country that wanted to annihilate israel. host: doug jones is the alabama in the illinois -- democrat in the alabama senate race.

joness from the doug campaign. >> i ivanka trump says there is a special place in hell for people who prey on children. jeff sessions as i have no reason to doubt these young women. richard shelby says he will not vote for roy moore. , puttingive voices children and women over party, doing much right. the latest from the campaign. robert is joining us from california. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for letting me come on. the traitorousn campaign that trump put on. happen to be a

traitor? if you incorporate the russians to take over our internet with advertisements, with every click getting an advertisement about some far-fetched problem that you could dream up because you don't have anything else to click on. then be influenced to vote for trump. you, my belief choices.nly have two we had trump and we had pilloried. when they came out with hillary's email, when the dei

brought that up again, she is breaking the law there. now,knew what we know let's coming out about how in debt trump runs with the russians, how could you not vote for her? they stole the election away from us. there is no compensation for that area i'm screaming at the tv every time the sky comes on. -- this guy comes on. the republicans, i am wondering who are these republicans? ago, they, two years we would have fiercely combated that. i just don't know where they are

right now. they should step up. here, i congressman out can only talk to him because he is my representative. my senators are harris and feinstein. he is a colonel in the army and he can't stand up against this president? host: we do have to move on. this is from the alabama website. roy moore is taking the lead in the senate hold. you can read the full story. next up is frank joining us from florida. this is open phones. what you thinking today? caller: i've got a complaint. i got my social security check

in the mail. it says to me you got a 2% increase. you're not getting a nickel because we are putting it to medicare. that's the same one i got last year and the year before. that means i haven't gotten a nickel into money i can spend in three years. i see these people spending billions on illegal aliens coming into the country. obama tried to spread them all over the country. obama gave them all attorneys to fight deportation. said turned around and we've got to feed these kids. , wean't leave these parents can't leave them on the street. because i haven't

yet in a raise in three years and social security. life and just rarely struggle to get by. i am literally fed up. host: thanks very much for the call. caller: host: this is the front page of the new york times. it begins with these words.

you can read the full story on the new york times. they are attributed this to 60 friends, public officials, and members of congress. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i have two questions. said theious guest

wall would cost x amount. how much did he say it would cost? host: it's in the billions. caller: i have another question. current debtates is $20.5 trillion. is $2.4rest on the debt billion a day. approximately six days to build the wall. thank you for listening. host: on friday, the president traveled to florida. it was a campaign style rally where he talked about roy moore. the election is set for tuesday.

>> we need somebody in that senate seat who will vote for our make america great again agenda. which involves tough on crime, strong on borders, strong on wall,ation, building the strengthening our military, continuing our great fight for our veterans. we love our veterans. likent conservative judges judge gorsuch on the supreme court. we want people that are going to greatt your gun rights, trade deals instead of the

horrible deals. jobs jobs jobs jobs. get out and void for roar more. -- roy moore. host: there is a tweet on the alabama race. let's go to philip joining us in michigan. the electoral college didn't go the way of the general public. it would be nice if a group of people would petition the government to make it so that when the general public goes the splitte direction, they the term so trump would be president for two years and hillary would be president for two years. said, twost caller

thirds of that is your social security fund. they stole it. thanks her c-span -- four c-span. -- for c-span. host: it was a busy week last week with the resignation of three members of congress. we will be talking about that as we look on the week in washington and the week ahead. c-span's washington journal continues in a moment. >> this week on the

communicators, to advocates of communications talk about net neutrality and regulating the internet like a public utility. >> it did regulates broadband. it takes broadband oversight out of umber two, it eliminates the roles against internet supervise prizers like comcast and at&t blocking internet traffic and allowing for "fast lane"s. charging online consumers to get to the consumer for better quality of service. and thirdly, this is really important, it prohibits the states from protecting consumers and competition with similar rules. >> there are three acts, at least three federal statutes

that protect consumers and entrepreneurs here and are powerful and have teeth and are the sherman act, the clayton act and the federal trade commission act. there are also state protections. the order says it prevents little f.c.c.'s and tries to regulate the economics of broadband but it doesn't prevent states attorneys generals from suing providers from harming consumers. >> watch "the communicators" monday night at 8:00 eastern on -span 2. >> by the time i came back to the district or shortly thereafter both my uncles were sent to prison and convicted with one of them sexual assault and the other armed robbery. so for the part of my childhood i could remember it was my mother, two sisters, my grandmother and my cousins. in the house on 13th street.

>> tonight on c-span's q&a, tiffany wright, from the law offices of hail and talks about her time as clerk from the .upreme court justice >> if you're a viable candidate you went to a really great school and have some pretty impressive people willing to speak up for you in the form of recommendation letters and you clerk for a small number of judges who routinely feed clerks to the court so for a person of color, particularly african-american or latino, to get into that pool there are so many obstacles to that, it becomes a real problem and i think it hurts because the perspective of diverse law clerk is important. every one of them i felt there was a case where i saw something that because of my life experience that someone else didn't see.

>> tonight at 8:00 eastern. on c-span. >> "good morning washington" continues. >> washington journal" continues. ruth marcus is a columnist for "the washington post" and her work available at washingtonpost.com and moana who is a senior chairman at the ethics center and indicated -- syndicated columnist. having worked for jack kemp does the tax bill moving to the senate have mirrored what jack kemp would have wanted. >> in many ways no. the tax bill has a feeling of desperation about it that was simply necessary to pass something and so they went for arbitrary corporate levels and for me the biggest disappointment in the big --

the bill, there are many good things but the disappointing part of it was mike lee and marco rubio proposed they just drop the corporate rate from 35 to 20 and with the savings they got there they get added benefits to families raising children and they didn't go for that. i thought that would have been the kind of tax reform that would have really touched the lives of a lot of people who need it desperately. it is, it feels more like just standard republican, you know, cut taxes for businesses and it will create growth about which i'm not -- host: ruth marcus, trump talks about taking a u turn because he promised this would be a middle class tax cut and a trillion dollars of the tax cuts go to corporations. ruth: this partly goes back to the question moana raised about whether the triple down effect

of corporate tax cuts causes them to invest more and create jobs and whether that wealth slows down to middle class workers or whether the wealth slows primarily as i think most economists believe to shareholders in the companies who tend to be wealthier. i think jack kemp and a lot of other republicans are just rolling in their graves over this. republicans used to care importantly about deficits, deficit spending and the 86 tax reform which was really important and bipartisanship effort was done on a deficit neutral basis and did not add to the deficit. this one on a technical basis as supported by c.b.o. as 1.4 trillion to the deficit but that's just a lie, really, that members who purport to care about deficits are telling themselves because the real cost is somewhere close to $2 trillion. republicans like jack kemp care

importantly about making sure that those less fortunate had a leg up and used pieces of the tax cut to do that with child text credit and the notion some republicans are arguing this crate cal difference between 22% and 20%. come on. no equitable person would use that 2% and give to corporations as opposed to giving to families that could use the family -- use the money. moana: as a society we're not grownups anymore about spending and taxes. we're not. so you have democrats coming into power, for example, obama came in with a house and senate controlled by democrats and had an opportunity to do something about our entitlement crisis and about spending and so forth and getting the government more reasonably on the road to

fiscal responsibility and instead passed a trillion dollar stimulus, they increased entitlement spending rather than reducing it, and during that time republicans claim they were very concerned about deficits and in fact you had the tea party movement saying taxed enough already, too much spending and so forth. and now guess what? shoe's on the other foot, republicans are in office and they are proposing tax policy that also will balloon the deficit, just as the stimulus did in the obama years and other spending in the obama years, obamacare included and now the shoe is on the other foot and the democrats are saying they're concerned about deficits and the republicans are claiming that either the preposterous claim tax cuts will pay for themselves which not true, or that this will so increase economic growth, that deficits will at least

diminish in the out years. and i think as grownups, we all have to recognize public policy is about tradeoffs and that, you know, not to say that there's never a good tax cut and never a good spending bill, sometimes there are but you have to be realistic and say, you know what, it's not going to pay for itself, it's fantasy talk. and you have to be willing when you want to increase spending in one area to decrease it in another. host: let's take it one step further. they say next entitlement will be spending. moana: welfare reform. >> the debt will increase by a trillion and a half tax cut by increase by entitlement spending. what are we going to see? >> can i look backwards before we look forward? monea makes a lot of point and disagree a lot less than we used to these days.

host: why is that? ruth: rhymes with chunk. there is a lot of shoe on the other foot with the inconvenience of deficits so otally fair point. when the democrats came in with obama the reason for the stimulus package is we really had economic crisis and a need to respond to it. we can get into an argument whether the amount was right and the money was well spent but there was a reason for it. we come in now and there's a reason to cut corporate tax rates and clean out the code and deficit in a revenue neutral way but there's not a reason for tax cuts right now in the sense that people are hugely overtaxed, that the economy needs some stimulus. so it's just become this kind of ritualistic, that's what republicans do, they cut taxes whether we need tax cuts or not.

we need tax reform. that's different. and the point about the willingness to take on entitlement reform, we can quibble about whether -- how good faith and effort obama did on that. but fundamentally i think the ailure to go for the simpson ol -- bowls deal of entitlement was one of the opportunities for the obama administration that leads us to where we are now looking forward. it's absolutely clear if you look at the budget that entitlement spending, social security and medicare primarily will be as our society ages as mona and i get closer to collecting social security, and i would point out to you mona is closer than i am, that we're going to have to -- mona: and wiser as well. ruth: and we'll have to figure

out ways to rein in some of that spending to spend it more wisely to raise money to pay for what's needed. the real concern that i have is that this decision to spend a couple trillion on tax reform -- on tax cut makes that all the more harder. it's going to make democrats who understand intellectually there's a need for entitlement reform all the less willing to do it because everybody just gets back into their trenches of you spent your money on tax cuts so i'm not going to spend my money on entitlement reform and annoy my constituents and risk my political future. i think this coming discussion is going to be really interesting because there's a lot of talk about, you know, waste, fraud and abuse. there's a lot of talk about people lying around in ham objection who -- hammocks, who

are unwilling to work and just happy to collect government checks. there's a lot less of that around than there used to be in part thanks to welfare reform during the bill clinton days. and i'd be really interested to know from mona as she thinks about this what reform of programs, others in programs for the elderly you think is really warranted at this point or would be a good idea. mona: i'd be happy to answer that but there is one thing i wanted to follow up on, though, in your previous point about entitlements and i don't disagree this will send everybody to their corners even more, and we're against that. on the other hand, i do remember -- of course it's a long memory but wasn't that long ago paul ryan was taking some political risk by proposing entitlement reform and he was awarded by being excoriated by obama and

democratic attack ads which showed paul ryan pushing grandma off the cliff. having said that, regarding the programs that need reform, one of the areas -- you say there's a lot less of that, meaning waste, fraud and abuse -- ruth: that enabled people to live around and collect government checks. mona: i'm not so sure that's the case. when you look at the number of prime aged men, ages 15-54 out of the work force entirely, not looking, not counted among the unemployed because they're not even searching for work and even though some of them are getting disability payments they're not disabled in any classic sense of the term. and those people are -- that program desperately needs to be reformed and tightened up on

eligibility because it does allow some people to simply collect benefits and sponge off the rest of us. ruth: that's really -- i think you identified the one program -- not the one program but i think you've identified the primary where he could have a serious debate about -- because there's been this enormous rise in the cost of the social security disability program. there are significant questions about what is the nature of the disability and whether -- it's interesting in our family's experience, because i have a relative collecting social security disability, it was very, very hard to get that so that was an interesting personal experience and yet something behind this rise, that clearly this disability's rolls rise that the economy worsens and suggest something is going on.

mona: when the economy improves it rises and when the economy is dipping it also rises. it's not just about the economy. ruth: we probably need to look at that, but that is -- is it really interesting because that is a program -- and i don't know the demographics off the top of my head, but i would and actually benefits annoys simultaneously a lot of trump voters. in other words, white working class voters who are working hard and living next door to somebody collecting disability. and i'm not accusing you of this in any way but the kind of classic, conservative, invocation of the welfare queen which worked very well some decades ago doesn't suggest it's an attack on white working class voters but just an attack on -- i'm not endorsing inner city minority voters.

but i think for them because they're not the ones for the most part collecting disability -- mona: they are, too. ruth: the welfare program has become a lot less accessible and generous than it used to be. host: i'm going to jump in and remind our audience, the guest, mona charin with the ethics and policy center and ruth marcus of "the washington post," columnist and deputy editorial page editor. let's get to your phone calls. mike first up from atlanta, republican line. good morning. caller: hey, i've got a question for mona. you're a breath of fresh air and don't seem biased and i listened to c-span all day today and you don't seem biased. i like you, mona. 's you talk about social security disability, do you think that the troubled administration will look at that or make changes to it? and one other thing before i go, i don't know if you know about the tax bill in depth but i make about $70,000, i don't make that much, i'm single.

ask the new tax thing help individual people who are married and don't have a house. i have an apartment. but the individual person benefit from this new tax. thank you and i'll listen to you, mona. mona: regarding your second question, i'm afraid i have to beg off and ask that you consult somebody who really studied the bill in detail and also of course there isn't a final bill yet, they still have to work it out in conference committee. there's a house version and senate version so we'll have to wait and see. regarding the trump administration, i would say this, president trump when he was campaigning made it a key part of his appeal that he would not touch entitlements, not touch social security or became the that republican vision. on the other hand, many of his appointees at the cabinet level have been serious reformers and you have people like mick

mulvaney at o.m.b. who have expressed concerns about reforming some of these programs. so it would obviously be terrific if the trump administration would change its view and consider reform of these programs which is, you know, the most obvious huge elephant in the room that as a society we have to cope with. it's going to bankrupt us unless we do something. the more we delay in reforming it, the tougher those reforms are going to be and the more they're going to hurt the most vulnerable americans who are the poor and the middle class, lower middle class who can least afford it. so i would hope that any responsible leader would take it on. i was hoping obama would when ruth mentioned that the simpson-bowles plan was presented to the obama administration. they basically gave it the back of their hand. this administration has shown so far no interest in reform

but there's always hope. host: james says raise the retirement year one year every five years until it gets to 72. from neptune, new jersey, you're next from the independent line. caller: how are you doing today, mona? nice listening to you. quick question, i hear everybody talking about cutting .he numbers on the tax reform how come we're not talking about why we pay taxes anyway? mona: well, we pay taxes because nothing is free and there are certain government services that are essential. we need to have a department of defense and a department of state. we need to have a justice epartment to run our courts. and so these essential

functions have to be paid for. what ruth and i have been discussing this hour is that we so -- the percentage of your taxes that go to support those essential functions are actually tiny compared to the overwhelming amount we are spending on just writing checks and sending them to individuals and those checks are social security, medicare, medicaid, and social security disability. host: let's turn to news this sunday morning. ruth marcus, "the washington post" back in the headlines with the president calling on reporter dave wigele to step down and be fired by "the washington post." what's this all about? ruth: i should probably start out by saying i write for and help manage "the post" opinion section. and as a technical matter, i know people won't believe us out there, but it's totally true, we are distinct from, separate from, answer to

different authorities than the news section. dave weigle writes for the news section. this is not about an article that dave wrote but a tweet that he posted that showed -- and i think it was misleading. it showed a photo that purported to say that president trump had a sparse crowd in pensacola, florida. dave tweeted it and it was pointed out to him that it was inaccurate/misleading and took it down. president trump, which was appropriate, right? president trump then accused him of purveying this falsehood and called on the washington post news side to say again -- i don't report to the executive editor but fred hyatt, the editorial page editor, called on marty baron and "the washington post" to fire dave

weigle, which leads to the question, if inaccurate tweets are cause for firing, there might be a long list of people that the president might want to start with, including maybe himself. host: this is what the president tweeted, dave weigle of "the washington post" admitted his picture was fake, fraud, question mark. and an almost empty arena for my speech in pensacola when he knew the arena was packed and shown also on tv. fake news. ruth: he admitted. host: he should be fired. ruth: when has something the president tweeted was fake when he retweets anti-muslim videos that shows things -- purport to show things that aren't true, what we get from sarah huckabee sanders the white house secretary, doesn't matter what is true or not but what matters is his fundamental point. ok. he made a mistake and owned up to the mistake and we all make mistakes and that's what you do when you make a mistake, you

admit it and you pay a price for it. host: let's turn to your editorial page. you wrote the following on senator franken's resignation, quote, if senators have the patience to let the ethics process proceed in the new jersey democratic senate case of robert mercedes, -- robert menendez, why not with franken? what about weighing whether some lesser punishment than essentially forced resignation would fit better franken's sirningses? the policy is doesn't answer what prove there should be efore it is meted out. ruth: the politics are reasonably clear. the democrats had two problems on their hand, congressman conyers who had very serious allegations against him for which he had paid money -- our

money, actually, to settle and make them go away, that tax money we were talking about. i thought there was enough evidence regarding congressman conyers that it was appropriate for him to resign. i thought the allegations involving senator franken were less serious and the proof was less advanced. i thought it would be a good idea in terms of due process to do a little bit more fact finding. host: 30 democratic senators said he had to go. ruth: because they're not worried about process and justice but worried about politics. i'm not saying that in a totally critical way. it's their job to worry about politics and to worry about trying to take back the house next year and they had a political problem on their hands that at least in the short term pressuring senator franken to resign helped solve for them. it was smart politics, bad policy. host: mona, you wrote the following when it comes to oaths like al franken and

insert your word, people ask how can he behave that way. men will do what they think they can get away with and for the last several decades in matter of sex, it's been more or less anything goes and that may be changing as we speak. mona: are you blasting me here. i'm totally confused. i like louse, that's a good word and i've had occasion to use it a lot recently. look, what i was trying to say in that column is that men throughout history -- i even mention gengous kahn who has left a huge number of genetic descendants, they've done genetic research showing something like 16 million people alive today have his genes. why? because he was a tremendous conquerer and could get away with it and so he did. all right.

but in the last few years, i think the last few decades, what you've had is a very libertine sexual culture. what used to be considered pornography is now on every network, movie and on television and our society is absolutely drenched in sex and innuendo and sexual humor and gull garrity and bad language -- vulgarity and bad language and these things have an effect. they weaken the standards about what's ok and not ok. host: an earlier caller said it's the women's fault because of the way they dress. ruth: that may go to the general lipper teen -- libertine culture. i think i disagree with you for this reason, it strikes me you can talk about the libertine culture and lower sexual standards and more free sex and easier -- less moral

disapproval of what used to be called premarital sex. mona: or extramarital. ruth: it strikes me the workplace culture was far more tolerant of sexual harassment and mistreatment of women in the 1950's and 1960's, early 1970's, the mad men era. mona: i don't agree with that. i think the show "mad men" has done a great deal to color people's perceptions about the way things were. think they've gotten worse. ruth: it's just not true. there was so much tolerance during the 1960's and 1970's of sexist language and sexist behavior, outright discrimination against women and things that happened in workplaces that would get you fired today would get you maybe like a tisk-tisk, keep it out of the office. i'll give you a totally personal, as personal as you possibly could get, as mona knows, my dad was my mom's

professor in college. ok. i am the product of what is now deemed to be sexual harassment. that was not sexual harassment but that is not permitted now. there is no college or university in america that would allow a professor to ask out a student. it is not permitted. so i think this notion that as we've gotten more permissive, we've had more behavior in the workplace is not correct. host: you wrote the following, women are often victims but not angels. yes, powerful men abuse their positions to get sex but any serious reckoning with sexual misbehavior has to take into account women that use their sexuality to gain advantage as well. just as everyone knows men who have harassed, they also know women who have slept their way to the top. mona: that's a part of human nature. if we have a reckoning of bad

sexual behavior, we can't leave that out and it happens all over in every field and isn't just politics or journalism and happens all over, maybe in particular in hollywood but maybe that's my presently. but i would say this, regarding your parents and -- by the way, my parents, same thing. my father was my mother's high school chemistry teacher though they didn't begin dating until they got to college. but in any event, this is something people are worried about. i read this, people say does this mean flirtation or even love and romance between people who work together is now going to be considered sexual harassment and some cynics are saying well, if she likes you, it's flirting and if she doesn't like you, it's sexual harassment and there might an tiny grain of truth to that, too. what i tried to say is look, i don't think any reasonable person, while flirting, god forbid -- and even dating in the office, you know, should be

acceptable because that's where we meet people and where we usually find mates, really. but what we're talking about with so many of these cases we've been hearing about in the last several months are cases of just gross, despicable behavior that doesn't come close to the term flirting. these are men who, to give a nod to the feminist interpretation of this, these are men who are not trying to win the affection of a woman but to prove their power over her and to make her uncomfortable and to lock her back on her heels and shock her or be abusive, really. and you know, the kind of stories, including people showing women pornography in their offices or exposing themselves or rubbing up against -- all of the -- if we're going to be drawing lines and clearly we're going to need to be explicit about what it is that is objectionable and i

think we can all start with gross behavior is objectionable. host: mona charen and ruth marcus, learning so much about them. let's go to darlene in henderson, nevada. thank you for waiting. you're next. caller: good morning. when we look at our nation, we really need to understand that we're not even educating our children anymore. we don't have a base line in the public school system. we've allowed children to go 12 years and still receive f's and wind up in high school with 25 credits. and you know, there's no base line from state to state and then you talk about people with disabilities and people work. i have worked for almost 15 years and then wound up with rheumatoid arthritis. but it is real. and people get disabilities. host: thank you, darlene. ruth marcus, you want to take that? ruth: well, in terms of educating our children, one of

the big issues during the campaign we haven't heard very ch about it, was i have no child left behind on the brain. but mona, will you remind me because i'm getting older, too, the law that says -- the kind of unified standards that -- common core. right. this was described by president trump, candidate trump and others as this terrible imposition. it was an effort to do what the caller talked about, which is to have states get together and set a set of common core, common standards, minimal requirements for children, students to meet. i thought that was a good idea at a very minimum. i think the caller's reference to her disability reminds us that there are a lot of jobs out there that are really punishing in america and a lot of people who develop injuries and are on disabilities that

are not job-related who still need to find a way -- we need to find a system that separates out those people really in need of assistance to those trying to gain the system. host: jerry is next. the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i kind of have a question i awould like to address to both our guests this morning. they were talking social security and the different areas it covers and how it needs to be reigned in. i'm 73 years old and still working, worked all my life, college educated. i'd like to know if they can tell me how much money today has been social security fund? i'm assuming it's zero except for what comes in on a weekly basis from people that are working. what would happen to me if i reached into my boss' till and took $10 out and put it in my pocket? both parties are guilty of this. both parties actually rob social security.

and i would go to jail for the $10 and i suggest that both parties should get together and throw the guys in jail that actually decided to rob the social security fund. thank you. host: mona charen? mona: well, of course what did richard nixon say? when the president does it, it's not illegal. no. i'm being a little bit -- trying to make a joke of it. but the fact is that you're right, there's no great fund sitting out there with your name on it that has your money that you paid into the system and is simply being returned to you. that's one of the fictions that keep people loyal to the program. i put my money in and i should get it out. of course the money you put in all those years was being used to pay out benefits to the retirees all along during your working decades and now it's

also been used for general spending. so there really isn't any massive pool of money out there to pay these debts and yes, it does depend on the next generation of taxpayers. and unless we -- so nobody is going to go to jail over this but what would make tremendous sense and what would be a sign of maturity on the part of our voters and our whole society would be for people to recognize that the moneys that to come from somewhere, that there is no free lunch and to recognize that if we do nothing o just right now, of course, do modest changes such as one of the viewers recommended, you know, increasing the retirement age by one year every five years, there are lots of things you can do. you can even tax benefits to the wealthy so that they get a little less and they can afford to take the hit.

there are lots of possible ways of dealing with it. the longer we delay the less money there will be for every other thing that you want government to do, whether it's responding to a potential ebola outbreak or dealing with north korea nuclear threats and floods and fires and emergencies in california right now. we see horrible fires. all those things you need government to do are being squeezed out by the big check writing company that's right across the street there that just writes checks to individuals. host: let's turn to the front page of "the washington post," senate race in alabama and this piece focuses on the impact it would have on the economy of alabama if roy moore wins. what's going to happen on tuesday? ruth: do i like like -- do i look like carnac the

magnificent? i haven't been to downtown alabama. that would be fun. my guess is roy moore wins. and the reason that's a guess is i suspect there are a lot of people who are more voters who are reluctant to tell pollsters there are more voters because there's a certain potential -- or should be a social stigma attached to it or that they're more inclined to hang up on pollsters who call them or try to reach them. alabama is a bright red state. it's not a state that in any other circumstance would elect democrats. so the fact that we're even having a conversation about hether there's a possibility roy moore might lose illustrates the remarkable nature of this race, that we could have somebody potentially elected to the united states

senate who has done what roy moore is credibly accused of doing is really appalling. the administration's view was if he did this, that is unacceptable, that no senate seat is worth having a child molester there which is what mark schwarz, legislative director of the white house said. host: richard shelby said he's not voting for roy moore, a republican, senator from alabama. ruth: good for shelby threw that's not the position of the republican committee or the president of the united states. his current position, doesn't matter what roy moore did, sarah sanders tells us what he did is concerning but it's even more concerning in this calculus to elect, god forbid, a democrat from alabama. host: if he wins where does it put the republican party? mona: brit hume had a good phrase on twitter, he said if

roy moore wins, he becomes the hood ornament of the republican party, meaning of course the democratic party will use him and wrap him around the necks of every other republican and guaranteed, if he is elected, he comes to washington and he continues to say ignorant, provocative, offensive things. every republican will be asked to respond to those things. tweet be like the trump times 100. ruth: we get a two-ring circus instead of a one-ring circus. you think the republicans should commence ethics proceedings against him? mona: let me just mention that e senatoral campaign committee headed by senator cory guarder in gave a very strong statement against moore

and even noting the president had done what he did, which is to endorse moore, gardner said we will not -- we will never do it and that's final. and they said what about the fact the president said he was going to endorse him? by the way, the president is making robocalls for him and gardner said we think we're right. that's it, that's all you have to say. it's simple, moral line. but, you know, here's the problem with an ethics investigation, ok. it is one thing when somebody has been elected and then committed some kind of ethical violation, take it up with the ethics committee because the voters didn't know that when they elected the person. when the voters are fully apprised of the situation and vote for him anyway, then the ethics committee should take it into their hands and say the person is unfit is a little more problematic. host: let me take it one step further, can you envision a

scenario if he wins the senate republicans would say the people of alabama have spoken and we're not overturning their will? mona: absolutely. host: to ned in huntsville, alabama. democrats line. what will happen tuesday, ned? caller: i don't know. i think by the mood of the people around here, i think moore would win. unfortunately. but my question to the panel is this, when a member of the congress leaves the office, just like in the case of conyers or even jeff sessions or secretary price, what happens to the funds, the moneys that they have in their war chest, do they keep that money or do they turn it over to somebody? host: good question. thank you, nick. ruth: i can answer this because i used to write about money in

politics. before i do i want to surprise mona by saying i agree with you. i have about ethics proceedings against -- i almost said senator moore. looking forward, against potential senator moore. that gives me some qualms. the answer on money in the war chest is it used to be once upon a time many decades ago that you could convert that money to personal use, which was just outrageous. that has been limited. you can keep it but you're only allowed to use it for approved political purposes. now, that can be a little bit porous. but you can give money to other candidates and use it to conduct polling or use it to run ads that advocate for positions that you'd take and things like that. so it remains your kind of political slush fund, not your, at least in theory, your personal slush fund. host: i want to share a tweet, aimed at ruth marcus, the

reason you liberals are so against roy moore is because he's a christian and takes a stand on christian values. ruth: i'm not a christian but it's not my understanding of christian a values and i'd be surprised if it was the tweeter's understanding of christian values to say that that includes taking a 14-year-old girl and taking off her shirt and taking off her pants and trying to sexually touch her and then telling her that nobody would believe her if she talked about it because he's the d.a. mona: he became a famous national figure when he put a big block with the 10 commandments on it down in alabama. and you know, it occurs to me he may not be following a number of those 10 commandments himself, including the one about not bearing false witness. one of the things that he has

done since these accusations came out is that initially when these women, a number of different women said that he had dated them when they were teenagers and/or sexually abused them when they were teenagers, his initial response to the question, did you date teenagers was not generally no, which is not a denial, and furthermore, he acknowledged publicly, it's on tape, knowing at least two of these young ladies and saying well, we were friend p. i don't know if we dated but if we did, we did. and then in the space of just a few weeks, having clearly decided it was to his political advantage to lie instead of to acknowledge that he indeed knew them he's now saying he knew none of them. it's all lies and all a political hit job.

maybe the former judge should read those 10 commandments again. host: we'll go to darlene in clark county, nevada. independent line. mona charen and ruth marcus at the table. good morning, darlene. caller: hope you're all well. good morning, ladies. and you're always such a lovely host. ladies, if i may redirect your conversation back to people who are on disability. i happen to be one of those people. unfortunately, i not only had to go through the process but then was denied and had to fight. now, my issue was i had intractable seizures so i spent eight years and 18 bones and having doctors pat me on the head who it got to a neurologist who sent me to the appropriate facility in arizona where they only deal with my kind of epilepsy where they had to do emergency brain surgery,

or i was going to die. so when i came back to nevada, the very snotty people at social security who forced me into the hearing process stood there arms folded and looked at me and said what is it you think you could possibly say that's going to change our mind? i dropped the paperwork on the desk and said well, i have to have emergency brain surgery or die due to the seizures and the traumatic brain injury i was unaware of. so tightening the restrictions, i beg your pardon, someone like me who had to spend years for 18 bones begging and pleading for help only to find out that oops, i really wasn't a faker. who on god's earth will hire me as i still have intractible seizures and what employee will allow me in the office praying i won't fall face first on a seizure and break my jaw on

another desktop or oops fall on my way to their restroom? host: thank you. we'll get a response. ruth, you want to take that? ruth: i think that's a very powerful and chilling story and as i was suggesting, it goes with some of the experience i've had with that system. we need to make a system that protects and is more responsive to and more respectful of the darlenes of the world. and that doesn't allow people who are less deserving and less needing of scares government funds to get access to them. i don't know enough about what's going wrong in the system to know what needs to be done to fix it. mona: i'll chime in and say i n't know your personal situation and sounds very difficult and sorry you had to go through all of that. llness is very, very terrible.

there's somebody in my family who have a disability, also, and i know how hard it is. but that being said, i don't think we should lose sight of the incredible value of work for everybody who can possibly work and that was one of the goals of the individuals with disabilities act is the idea that even if you are disabled, even if you do have the disease or do have various limitations, people -- employers need to make accommodations and everybody should try to work to the degree you possibly can because we value work so much and because it's such a source of self-respect and gratification and meaning in life. so that's also something to keep in mind is the goal should be for everybody to work in some way to the degree they can even taking into account their various handicaps. host: quickly, i want to ask both of you, the front page of the jerusalem post, widespread violence in the territories and

not as predicted but all because of the president named jerusalem as the capital of israel and moving our embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem. ruth, what's the significance of this? ruth: the significance is that president trump, unlike a lot of previous candidates, ctually did what he promised in recognizing jerusalem as the capital of israel. whatever the state of protests are from my point of view, it was a risky and unnecessary decision. peace hinks that the process is in good shape now but i don't think that this made it in better shape, and so i am disappointed that he made that move. host: quick comment? mona: i disagree. ridiculous as

fiction that jerusalem is not the capital or israel or that somehow the u.s. doesn't recognize it as such. it has been the voice view of the american people through congress and through various administrations that we believe it is the capital and it was kind of a -- it gave the palestinians an unrealistic expectation that their maximumalist demands were in fact possible when he's much more likely if they recognize israel is here to stay, they must recollect ok sile themselves to that reality and make an agreement with israel directly. and if this signals that more forcefully, then i think it's a beneficial thing for peace in the long run. host: the president is tweeting again this morning at 8:35, talking about the tax bill. and if you follow him at real donald trump, this is what the president said, getting closer and closer on to the tax bill, shaping up even better than projected. house and senate working very

hard and fast and result will not only be important but special, exclamation mark. joined on the republican line in alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. excuse me. makes me so angry, when these ladies were talking about judge moore as if he had already been convicted. they don't know this man. they've had plenty -- if that was true, he was elected twice to the supreme court of alabama as the head and all this would have come out then -- bear with me, i'm nervous. number one, we are christian, most of us, and a lot moving in tried to change our values and with gossip it will not change and he will help. -- help washington when he goes there. but number two, i'm tired of y'all acting like our president is just nothing. i read a book when i was in the 10th grade, five days in may, and i'll never forget that book

and all that's been happening to this president is just like seeing it come to pass. there's people in the government trying to get him out but i hope to goodness he gets to run two terms. host: thanks for calling. did you want to ask her a question, either of you. ruth: i'm curious, you say he was twice elected to the supreme court of alabama, probably i'm tempted to point out he was twice ousted from that role. and if this was true it would have come out then. so do you think all these women now are just lying? caller: yes. look at gloria allred. look at the history. she brings up all these people nd digs up stuff it. they still don't have the book. ruth: that's one woman represented by gloria allred and there's a question about whether -- in the just the inscription but the notation of where and when it happened, whether that should have been

revealed earlier that she wrote that part. do you believe that the other women are lying? caller: i don't believe none of them, not now. because if it was true they would have come out years ago. i'm a woman. i've been molested in the past and it didn't take me until 40 years and the only reason i'm doing that is because he's going into our government and don't want him there and they're trying everything in the world to keep that man out. but it's going to be there and he's going to be a good one and like jeff sessions and stay there the next 30 years. good luck. mona: let's leave aside the question about the women and whether they're telling the truth or not. given some of the things we already knew about roy moore disturb you at all, the fact that he is ignorant, that he shall rea -- sir a law was happening in

arizona and he believes muslims shouldn't be allowed to serve in the united states government which obviously is forbidden by our constitution which says no religion test shall be required for any public office. what about those things? doesn't it worry you that he does not seem to be loyal to the constitution? caller: he is loyal to the constitution. he's very loyal to the constitution. y'all are just -- i mean, you just twist it, and the christian thing, that remark. you know, y'all have put us down like we're nothing. and hillary clinton made that same mistake. everybody who voted for obama are deplorable people. mona: i have the greatest respect for christians in particular because christians have secretly been the great voices for upholding morals and ethics in our society who ndorse and support a lying

known, very strongly suspected child molester, who, by the way, didn't bother to really deny it in the beginning. later he began to deny it. someone who does not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve and that homosexuality should be illegal and muslims shouldn't be allowed to serve who engailinged in sematic tropes with his comments with george soros and that i singe a bitter disappointment that christians would see all of that and excuse it. host: we go to piketon, ohio, independent line. thank you for waiting. caller: thank you very much. i worked for 12 years for the defense. i live down south and opposed a lot of things. the comment on the previous caller and then i want to transition to that.

part of the problem here i think is our educational system, the lack of a better vernacular. most people in this country don't seem to appreciate the difference between opinions and facts so we evolve into a lot of drama and things that become irrelevant with regard to solutions. and i say that because it correlates to what the other caller was saying to begin with revious to this one. host: differentiating between opinions and news. ruth marcus, you bridge that divide. ruth: somebody used the word "biased" before. i get these emails all the time, you're letting your bias show. they may me to have opinions. i try to back up those opinions with facts and factual assertions. huh a good one, mona, when you asked the caller how she could reconcile her assertion that

judge moore -- i'm reluctant to call him judge. that roy moore has respect to the constitution when he asserted that muslims shouldn't be allowed to serve in the u.s. congress. that is just clearly not permitted under the constitution which prohibits religious tests. so i think in my world i marshal facts in sport of opinions, in the news side world, -- and i did this many years when i worked in the newsroom, you marshal facts to people can form their own opinions and important in what we do in journalism. host: as we look ahead to the midterm elections in 2018, what are you looking at in particular with regard to congress and races in particular. we have about a minute. mona: i'm very interested to see what happens to the democratic party when it is no longer led by hillary clinton who is one of the least popular standard-bearers in the history of any party and i'm wondering how much of a drag she was on

democratic turnout and if it was fast t could be a huge year for democrats in 20178. -- 2018. ruth: there will be a big fight in the democratic future that will play out in 2020 than 2019 and 2018. i'm most interested in the house of representatives and some of the potential fallout from this tax bill as some of the remaining republicans in blue states, particularly republicans in california, could really get hammered by their constituents because of the elimination or reduction for state and local property taxes. host: you think that will be a big theme by republicans and democrats? mona: it could have an effect on the composition of the congress, though not on the presidential race because california, new york and illinois and so forth were going to be voting for the democrat anyway. but yes it could have some effects. host: mona charen, syndicated

ruth marcus of "the washington post." we're back tomorrow morning looking at congress and the tax bill as it moves through the house and senate. lisa mistara who covers politics and shannon pettypiece will be here at the 8:00 hour. and your money, a look at special investigations and what robert mueller will cost american taxpayers. andrea noble who is following that as a justice department reporter for "the washington times" is tomorrow morning on the c-span washington journal. "newsmakers" is up next and enjoy your weekend and have a great week ahead. ♪

>> here this morning, "newsmakers" is next with republican senator pat roberts of kansas. that's followed by president trump announcing his decision to officially recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel, with reaction afterwards from israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and the united nations. and later, the resignation announcement from minnesota senator al franken, who is stepping down at the end of the year amid allegations of sexual misconduct. >> this week on "newsmakers," we're joined by the chair of the agriculture committee, senator pat roberts, republican of kansas, and on studio with us, we have a congressional reporter with the "wall street journal" and the editor with -- a senior reporter there. thank you very much for being with us. senator roberts, let me just begin with -- you're also on the ethics committee.