talking about his new book "the republic of virtue: how we tried to ban corruption, failed, and what we can do about it." then, we will take a look at conflicts to watch in the new year with uri friedman from the "atlantic." ♪ host: good morning. welcome to "washington journal." congress is out for the holidays, but the debate will likely heat up quickly once they are back into session in early january, especially in the area of federal spending. the government is still operating on borrowed money. the question for you this first hour, which government and if it is most important to you? if you live in the eastern or central time zones, -- if you live in the western u.s. --

if not by phone, you can weigh in on social media. you can also post a comment on facebook.com/cspan. the folks at the pew research center have a report out with a inakdown the $3.95 trillion federal spending. social security makes up 24% of that spending. medicare, 15%. other types of health care, 50%. income security, 13%. veterans business -- benefit 5%. education, 3%. national defense, they save 15% of the budget. net interest, 6%. the headline to the piece says, what does the federal government spend your tax dollars on? social insurance programs mostly. paul ryan, the speaker of the

house, boasted on a radio show about teh -- the future. here is what he had to say. we will get to paul ryan in a seconds, but read a bit from "the weekly standard" first. he says that following the tax bill, ryan is not one to bask in the glow of past accomplishments. i asked about his priorities for 2018. he named three. surprisingly, health care reform. i don't think the health care issue is done, he said, including eight willingness to revisit obamacare. at the end of the day, we have to go against -- we have to go at the root cause. he noted the president has expressed interest in his ideas for what the programs and medicaid -- for welfare programs and medicare. here is the speaker now. [video clip] talk about

entitlement reform, it is clear one of the things you are talking about is obamacare. >> and welfare reform, we think it is important. system that isre trapping people in poverty, and we have got to work on that. >> are you thinking about trying to do reforms with social security or medicare at this point? president trump has not seemed interested in those things. >> he has not shown as much interest. you cannot use budget reconciliation for social security. it is exempt from those rules. it is the health-care entitlements that are the drivers of our debt. we spend more time on the health-care entitlements. host: they talked about the president. the president sent out this tweet, i was the first and only potential gop candidate to state there will be no cuts to social security, medicare, or medicaid.

that is the president from 2016. -- he is that determined to press his case. we are never going to give up on entitlement reform and the things we need to do to get the debt under control. i think we have a pretty good shot at getting these things done. before we go to the phones, bernie sanders had a little bit to say this week on the floor. he is ranking member on the budget committee, of course. he warned that republicans next year will return to title meant -- two entitlement spending. ♪ >> mr. president -- [video clip] >> mr. president, this is not just bernie sanders speculating. this is what the "new york times" said in an article a few "as theo, and i quote,

tax cut legislation passes senate early sunday, republicans are preparing to use the swelling deficit made worse by the package as a rationale to pursue their long-held vision of undoing the entitlements of the new deal in society, leaving government leaner and the safety nets skimpier for millions of americans. " speaker paul ryan and other republicans are beginning to express their big dreams that next year, they will move on to changes in medicare and social security. said last week, we are going to go into welfare reform." and of course, "new york times."

let me take this opportunity to translate into english what phrases like entitlement reform or welfare reform really mean. reality arean in massive cuts to social security, education,edicaid, nutrition programs, affordable housing, and other programs desperately needed by a inclining middle-class. with that setup, the question goes to you. which government benefit is most important to you. helen is up first. caller: good morning, merry christmas. what really bothers me is they always talk about the middle-class getting a raise. you know what, sir? they told us we were going to two-point-something

race for our social security. i got a 2% raise, but they did not tell me that my premium went from $110 to $134. i was able to only get $10. race.ear, we got a measly i didn't get nothing. it cost me a dollar. i am so sick of these politicians talking about the middle class, the middle-class. they are people that need to get off their tin and get to work. it is like they are going to give people money for tax credits. some of them don't even pay taxes. host: helen, is there one party or another that is better suited to handle it? caller: congress needs to revisit how they pay these social security recipients when they give us a raise.

they base it on the price of oil, sir. my brother got a two dollar raise. that won't even pay for a gallon of gas, or a gallon of milk. host: thank you for calling. pat is on the line from texas. each government and if it is most important to you? caller: good morning, c-span and "washington journal." medicare and social security, but social security, one of the congressman last week was on "morning joe" and he is a conservative. he said social security is solvent until 2033. it has several trillion dollars in the trust fund, and he said that. what they are going to hit is medicare, because they can do it with reconciliation.

i am sofor trump and aggravated at him i don't know what to do. i can't stand to watch them on tv now with this tax cut. they start hitting medicare and social programs, there is going to be a landslide. i have been a republican, but no more. the democrats will take the house and take the senate. they make me sick. this tax cut for the wealthy makes me sick. i am so aggravated, i don't know what to do. and i can't begin to believe what they are trying to do to the poor and the middle class. it is terrible. host: thank you for calling. mike is calling from illinois. what would you like to say? which government benefit is most important to you? caller: social security. when trump was campaigning, he was talking

about closing loopholes. it is a big time job. it was just a tax cut for the wealthiest. raiseee -- they need to social security and take the limits off the income for people paying into it. they want to give tax cuts -- i am a supporter of tax cuts for corporations that come here. but we did not close any loopholes in the reason we have jobs in this country is because we cannot compete with 25 cents an hour in china. i don't know -- did i lose you? host: we heard you, thanks for your input. a couple callers mentioning social security as the most important to them. the center for budget and policy priorities digs into that and other spending areas.

socialas details go, security last year, 24% of the budget, or $916 billion, paper social security. -- paid for social security. social security also provided benefits to 3 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6 million surviving spouses and children of deceased workers, and 10 million disabled workers in december 2016. just some of the nuts and bolts of social security. we will walk through some of these others. robert is on the line from arizona. welcome,bert. -- robert. caller: i am 85 years old and social security gave me a six dollar raise this time. [laughter]

caller: they took back most of it. host: what you make of that six dollar increase? caller: it isn't much. [laughter] caller: it won't help me by a gallon of milk. host: do you have other sources of retirement income? caller: i have a pension plan for my union. i wasason i am calling is watching trump on television yesterday, and he mentioned this tax overhaul that he is instigating, but he never mentioned when it was going to start. startwondering, does it january 1, february 1, or march 1? someone might possibly know. host: it is a lot now because he signed -- it is the law now because he signed it yesterday. it may take until february when people start to see the

increases in their checks, but essentially it is happening right away. that was the design for it to take place in 2018. [video clip] here,s is a bill right and we are very proud of it. it is going to be a tremendous thing for the american people. it is going to be fantastic for the economy. it is going to keep companies from leaving our shores and opening up in other countries. they are very dis-incentivized. not a lot of sense to do that. i don't think you will be running your company very well. what is happening is we are going to sign this. this is a little picture of it. it fits nicely in the box. i should take it out of the box because people should see it. everything in here is really things for

businesses, for people, for the middle class, the workers. things for and i consider this very much a bill for the middle class and a bill for jobs. through are produced companies and corporations, and you see that happening. operations are literally going wild over this, so far beyond my expectations. i will sign this today as opposed to having a formal ceremony in two weeks when we were going to do it, because i did not want you folks to say i was not keeping my promise. i am signing it for christmas. i said the bill would be on my desk before christmas, and you are holding me literally to that. so we did a rush job today. it is not fancy, but it is the oval office. host: the headline in "the washington post," president signs tax bill and begins his break. he headed the palm beach, florida and his estate there

where he will spend the holidays. the polls have shown the bill is unpopular, but trump and congressional republicans have argued that americans will view it were favorably when they see savings in their paychecks. the wall street journal touches on the bill as well. partisan vote on tax bill is a warning side. they write, if there are problems with the law, they are unlikely to have partners in democrats to fix it, in the same way republicans have stood against the affordable care act. the political backdrop is a warning sign. the new tax system encoded by republicans is fragile. there are many challenges on the horizon that will war it changing the law -- that will warrant changing the law. the potential for flaws in the law itself that might be gained by households or businesses, as has been the case with the aca.

addressing them will not be easy. back to government benefits. which benefit is most important to you? ralph has been hanging on the line from new york. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have a quick suggestion for c-span. eight while back, you did the top -- a while back, you did the top 10 supreme court justices. it would be good to do social security, the national labor relations act and what it took to pass those bills, which party was in power. the most important government program is definitely social security. host: how come? caller: i believe the percentage, 36% of retired workers are on it and is their sole income. it is a vital government program. host: what do you think based on what you read and hear from folks in washington about the future of the program?

caller: with the pay for those tax cuts, for the gop plan, they may try to move the age of to save money. host: what would you be most in favor of if a change had to be made? caller: people are living longer. they have got to raise the cap on it. $120,000 right now. they could raise that. host: rolfe mentioning the top 10 supreme court cases, preferring to our landmark cases. -- ralph mentioned the top 10 supreme court cases, referring to our landmark cases. thank you for that tip on another series we can do. don is calling from load i, california. good morning, what would you like to say? caller: the most important

programs to meet our social security and that it care -- and medicare. i would like to tell our boys and girls in congress to keep their grubby hands off of it. they want to pay for this discretion oh tax cut to the discretional tax cut to the wealthy. perhaps they should consider shutting down some of these bases we have all over the world that i cannot see how they benefit anyone in this country. it sucks the taxpayers dry. host: what has your experience been like with the medicare program and what can be fixed if anything? caller: i think it is a wonderful program. when i had a heart attack and was in the hospital, they paid for just about everything. was so low, of cost

it was wonderful. i cannot conceive of any other kind of system, especially that was -- that those elitist republicans would want wasted upon me -- hoisted upon me. the best piece of legislation that this country has ever produced. it kept me, my parents, my grandparents out of poverty. they are threatening it because they have always hated the concept. they want people to work until the day they die. that is what these people want because they are elitists. it is about time somebody said it the way it is. host: thank you for calling. more of the details on medicare, medicaid, chip, and subsidies. this comes from the center of

budget and policy priorities. medicare, medicaid, and the children's health insurance program, and the affordable health care market subsidies accounted or 24% of the budget -- 26% of the budget or $1 trillion. several billion went to medicare, which provides health care to around 57 million people. medicaid,oes to fund chip, and aca subsidy and exchange cost. in 2016, 9 million of the 11 million people enrolled in health external -- health insurance exchanges received subsidies at the cost of $31 billion. mitch mcconnell was asked about

possible welfare entitlement program changes and the coming year. this was a news come -- news conference on the hill yesterday. [video clip] >> the president's, the speaker, and i will meet the first week of january to see what the top priority items are next year. here is the observation about entitlement reform. i have been here a while. the only time we have been able to do that is on a bipartisan aces. -- on a bipartisan basis. it was a long time ago. it was ronald reagan and tip o'neill. it has been a wild. -- it has been a while. youtlements are such that almost have to have a bipartisan agreement to achieve a result. needed.desperately i have been talking about it for years.

we had a missed opportunity during the obama administration to address the long-term unsustainability of some of our most popular programs, who currently do not meet the demographics of the country in the future. but it requires a bipartisan, sincere agreement to tackle it, and those pieces would have to be in place, i think, to be successful. speaker, the president, and i are going to talk about this whole area in a couple weeks and we will have or to say about what the agenda is then. senate majority leader on the hill yesterday before he left for his home state of kentucky. which government benefit is most important to you? viewers are responding this way. congress needs to address medicare first. that is bleeding dollars. also, vote blue.

stop taxing social security. it is particularly cruel to people who need it to live. judy has been waiting from milwaukee. which program is most important? caller: good morning. social security. host: how come? what does it mean to you? caller: i am able to live, survive. host: is it your only form of income? caller: yes. what gets me mad is you work all of your life paying into social security and medicaid and medicare, and now they want to take it away? let the rich pay for it. host: thanks, judy. joseph on the line from eastern pa. caller: the last two people said everything.

i cannot add anything more to program.pt the drug they tried to get the government to control the prices, to get the prices down, but the republicans wouldn't do it. they would not let you go to canada to get the drugs cheaper. they have got us blocked everywhere. another thing i just wanted to say, the way you have it set up, eastern, central, mountain and pacific. i wish you would have kept republican and democrat and see how many republicans calling in are complaining about social security and medicare. i wish you would do that instead. thank you. host: thank you. sylvia is an alexandria, virginia. caller: good morning. thank you for this topic. i wanted to say, i am 64 years old.

i am trying to last until i am 66, but i have an artificial hip and herniated discs. it is a struggle for me to get to 66. i think social security is very important, and so is medicare. my mother in law is on that. i want to point out something. i think paul ryan said something a week ago about how people need to have more children so we can support these programs. i don't remember exactly. i read it -- i don't remember exactly where i read it in. but i want to say something for the daca folks. they need young people. why would we be sending these young people out there? if they want to stay here and they are trying to get education and jobs, and now we are going

to try to send them out when we could use them, because those people would support the system that we are trying -- that we value in our lives. so, i just want to point that out to the people who are listening. and yes, just like the other gentleman said, how many people are democrats versus republicans, and feel that they -- wherever you vote, you have to use wisdom in your life to see what is best. host: sylvia, you mentioned speaker ryan. he said in that piece they will never give up and retitle it -- entitlement reform. dsen you hear the word in entitlement reform, what does it make you think?

caller: i have worked so many years. why do they take money from me and my employer and put it into social security? yes, that was meant to help the older people. but i still am the one who put the money in. every time you worked at a job that you didn't get money under the table, you put money into that system for the fact that when i get old and it is harder to work that i can have something in a nest egg. it would be wonderful if we take more money and put it aside, but by the time you have children and you put them through school, you raise them, there really is not a lot of money to put aside. so every year that you work, the government was doing it for you, basically. host: thank you, solea.

-- thank you, sylvia. let's go to larry now. caller: social security is the most important payment that is made, and the reason is because tois a source of stability stimulate the economy, which is the original reason that franklin roosevelt's administration passed a law during the great depression of 1933 for it to be changed -- of 1933. for it to be changed now would be disastrous, because companies structured retirement incorporating social security benefits into this. a lot of people don't understand that the payments that were withheld -- i paid 15.2% because that wentmployer -- to current recipients.

now we are recovering from a recession from 2008, it is a problem. and the growing need for social security payments for baby boomers, it is a problem that needs to be straightened out. it would be disastrous if it were to be eliminated. democrat, but the think they, i don't understand how important it is for a lot of people, because for a lot of people it is the sole source of income. that was what i wanted to say. host: thanks for calling. more of the details. 9% of the federal budget is what they called safety net programs. this is other than health insurance and social security

for people and families facing hardships. spending on safety net programs increased five $4 billion, and the client -- declined. speaking more about entitlements, nancy pelosi did an end of the year breathing on -- end of the year briefing this week. [video clip] iton entitlement reform, is something that is even possible in this congress? if so, what are some things democrats could get on board with? >> the fact is, this is part of the starve the beast values system that the republicans have. they do not believe in governance, so any public role in the health and well-being of the american people is on their hit list.

when they go after entitlements, anis not because it is increase in the deficit, because they clearly do not care about increasing the deficit. they care when it is going to help children. we can't do that because it will increase the deficit. but when it comes to giving tax breaks to corporations, it doesn't matter anymore. that is a completely separate sustain --to how we as we did in the affordable care act, we longed the life of medicare 10 years, maybe 13 years. social security is in reasonable shape until at least 20 30-something. nonetheless,, -- we want that to be even longer. these are issues we can talk about separately, but we will fight to defend them because it is about the health and economic

security of america's working families. not let it be an atm machine for them to give a tax break to the wealthy. host: it is saturday morning, december 23. congress is out for a bit now. senate will be back the first week of january, the house back the second week of january, on january 8. we are talking about which government benefit is most important for you. we have talked a lot about medicare, social security. kenny is on the line from kentucky. good morning. caller: how are you all doing? host: doing well. what is most important to you? everything, medicare, everyone needs it that works for it.

but as bad as this sounds, i've worked all my life, and now i got hurt. 2008.ted my back in they took care of me. i got my first social security check in 2008. that was obama, and i am a repulican. -- republican. but i take them as i come. we have got -- i'm sorry. we have got a little thing in 2008. we never got another one until this year. when i got it, it was 10%. i called social security and said, i would like to know how this works out. she said, you have got a 10% raise. am i going toch

have to pay back? she said, no. the way it is going to work out, $29 goes -- you are getting $30, something else, and you get one dollar. $12 a year. s the man said a while ago, is my wor -- if my wife worked her whole life, they turned her down twice. she called them back and they said, you cannot sign up because you have been turned down twice, and she has worked all of her life. i am fixing to get laid off. host: thanks for calling. we will do this for about 25 more minutes.

dana responded on twitter to something else someone else said. social security is not a nest egg. kids that nothing. be found this piece in "the washington post" about the biggest beneficiaries. they write that it is working class whites. working-class whites are the biggest beneficiaries of government safety nets, even though blacks have higher rates of positive -- of poverty. government aid and tax credits lifted export to million working-class whites out of poverty, more than any other racial or ethnic demographic. half of all working age adults without college degrees lifted out of poverty right safety net programs are white, nearly a quarter are black and 1/5 hispanic. thatesult is not simply

there are more white people in the country. the percentage of otherwise poor whites lifted from poverty is .igher at orting 4%, -- at 44% we have helen on the line. helen is in michigan. good morning. host: how are you? -- caller: how are you? host: doing well, how are you? caller: i am thinking if i was to invest my money with madoff, it -- actually, but i did willingly, ok? and the fact of the matter is, because we worked our entire lives for this money, our employers paid half, we paid half. and it got put into a fund.

i know sticky fingers have already been in that fund. i already had a piece of the pie. i really think that we are in trouble right now. this country is in such trouble. i am a diehard democrat. i don't care, i will always be. i don't believe in what they are doing with all this fbi bullshit. excuse the swear word. theyhing of it is that would get sued. not anand this is entitlement. this is something that they have taken away, for are trying to take away. this was the plan when they did the tax. joke.s not a

this is the plan they had. host: thank you for calling. mike from corona, california. caller: joke. it has definitely got to be social security, as i have paid into it for 40 years. i don't draw. i prefer not to touch anything from the government. it's their design, it's a failed plan. but a lot of people live on it and i believe it should they the way it is and don't touch it. i don't believe president trump is planning on touching it. i hope he doesn't. host: you say you don't draw off of it. do you think you will on the future -- in the future? caller: i will have to. i paid into it. gave me exactly what i put in, i would be as happy as a lark. but if i die before they get it all, my wife gets half of mine.

system and ad ponzi scheme in my opinion, but i had to pay into it. i did not have a choice. it is something that i wish to get all the money i put in, if for nothing else, for my family. i think we should get rid of everything else the government is out. make it a big zero game, except for defense. that is the only thing i want to do, is no the government is protecting myself and my family from people want to do us harm. host: you want to get a quick call in from kathleen from australia. caller: good morning. host: we understand that you are not american. caller: we came here for two eyars -- two years for work,

and decided we did not quite understand the different culture. we would like to stay a little longer, and one that becoming citizens. we have been here 20 years. speak to us first about the u.s. system, what you know about it. what is the most important government benefit to folks back here, or you when you were here, and tell us about your life in australia? thing: the most important is not for me personally, even though we still pay taxes. in california and u.s. taxes. my mother is in a nursing home in taxes -- in kansas. went tehre to help -- when i went there to help my mother get into care, i spent several days -- actually, several weeks going through what

was available to her. she had some social security, she had some insurance, she had a very small retirement. i spent a lot of time with the care workers in the social security workers there in kansas, and they were just swapped. -- they were just swamped. it was an experience to go through with one's parent. for me personally, if they cut social security, the only person i can help my mother is me. and i am a long way away. host: kathleen, thanks for calling. for those asking about defense --ore, some of the details again, the center of budget priorities, defense and international security is another 16% of the budget. it paper defense related

activities. the spending in this category underlies the cost of supporting overseas contingency operations. the funding totaled $7.4 billion in 2016. the organization known as truthout.com says the government's -- says it is the biggest entitlement program on the planet. the trap is the dakar -- the department of cap -- the department of defense. it is the biggest big government program on the planet, easily beating out china's people's liberation army in size and cost. it is not only the nations but it alsooyer,

provides government benefits to 2 million retirees. takes private sector winners by targeting billions of dollars to an elite group of profit seeking contractors. t.com is where you can read more. we have donald in new york. caller: i would like to wish everyone in the u.s. a merry christmas. i wish someone would bring out the facts of social security, because i believe that a percent on average does not pay in -- that a person on average does not pay in as much as they take out when they retire. i wish someone would bring out the truth ask about this. the gentleman california says it is a ponzi scheme, and i think he is right on that. the only way social security gets paid is from people working and paying in social security. when you give a tax cut to the

rich, which everyone takes is bad, those people employ more people, and when those people are employed, more social security is coming into the government. i don't know why people cannot realize that. host: homer from louisiana. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i understand when i was paying social security, i am 65 years the socialaid into security system. i don't understand why we keep calling it an entitlement. you have all these people who sit around and pay nothing. . just don't understand

thank you very kindly. host: politico writes about who gets left behind in the spending bill. they write that short-term funding includes funding for the chip program, that is the children's health insurance program that we have been talking about. a spending patch until march 31, but the program remained in flux. squabbling remained for how they would maintain the program. they tried to repeal obamacare and push their tax reform plan. they talk about other programs, the national insurance -- flood insurance program was extended, and they will pay out until at least january 19. the pentagon budget provided more for does -- missile-defense

programs. the veterans choice program, useh allows some vets to private hospitals, was given $2.1 billion into the fall of 2018. what congress left behind, they point out, includes $81 billion in disaster aid. it was pulled out at the last minute after facing resistance. we look forward to seeing what happens with the spending bill. spending,caps about what is in this bill and what is not. host: michelle, things for waiting -- thanks for waiting. caller: i am confused. entitlement programs are paid for by the working people, coming out of their pay. medicare, social security.

surprised that we have a social security tax when they have to use that money to help support all these programs that they say they will not continue to go on? pullin frompeople the systemg we are paying into that people paying in. host: peggy noonan writes in "the wall street journal," this text ryan can do some good. -- this tax plan to do some good. best thing since coolidge was a pup. will this bill make things a little better or a little worse? there is much reason to believe it will make things better. it is imperfect, to say the

least, but it is good to cut the rate to a more constructive 21%. it is compassionate to double the child tax credit. -- cut taxes tell for small businesses who are struggling. america is waiting for a boon. encourage the circumstances for which it can happen. times" has this piece that it could possibly fuel trade tensions. lo republicans, the overhau will make the u.s. a better place to do business. but the rest of the world, it has the potential to challenge the economic quarter, setting off a race amongst countries to cut corporate taxes. they go on to say the overhaul is already threatening economic relations, adding to concerns that mr. trump is advancing a nationalistic agenda at the expense of other countries.

leaders raised the prospect of a trade battle. chinese officials are raising defensive measures to protect the economy and its competitiveness. times."in "the new york which government program is most important to you? good morning. caller: good morning, and merry christmas to you. the most important benefit to me is my social security. puti feel that god himself every human being on this earth to help each other. thathe key for the people are wealthy, if they ever think that they will get to heaven is working poor.

the working poor are the ones who are suffering in this country, and they far outweigh any other segment of this society. all we have is what little bit that is stripped down to us. host: linda, anything else? caller:i pray to -- caller: pray to god that a culture change will happen in this country where each man and woman will look out for their brother and sister. host: thank you for calling, linda. david from l.a. good morning. caller: i hope i can be somewhat clear this morning. as far as government programs are concerned, i think at the

crux of your question, and i am listening to some of your callers, they seem to have a disdain or some kind of problem with the government providing services. and i think there is a racial component to this. i wish you would get a scholar poverty the color of and the history of jim crow and true affirmative-action. listenersour white are of the notion that the government, you know, never did anything for them. they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. reallytory would pooh-pooh that notion, because --inhave set up the whole

the california suburbs with subsidies. into of programs went supporting the so-called wh ites, where they absolutely banned through law blacks from even participating. like, white people have benefited so much from the government, but they do not see it because they are of this myth about bootstraps and whatnot. bill and rede gi lining and jim crow was white affirmative action. everyone else was excluded for them. are you still with me? host: still with you, david. go ahead and wrap up. caller: to wrap this up, i think

the problem is now, somebody talked about starving the beast. they areis beast trying to starve? they are trying to eliminate these problems -- these programs. we have another bout of jim crow and economic discrimination ready to jump off again, right? and history is repeating itself. i would just like to say for the benefit of your white listener, go back and study economic history as it relates to how it is you got your middle-class. host: the words there of david in l.a. let's take a call from tony in massachusetts. caller: good morning. but i really old,

do not have a good view of social security because the rates were set when people were living to the mid-70's. now people are living into their 80's. before, people might spend 5% or 10% of their adult life on social security. now, they can spend maybe 20% of their adult life on social security. paideople always say they into social security and they are entitled to it, but can we really afford it? and also, it encourages age discrimination in my opinion. and just last night, i saw on the nightly news that people who retire early tend to die early. there is a lot of drawbacks to encouraging people to retire earlier than they have to.

and also, i am self-employed. i think that is the only reason that i have any good economic future, economic because i am not affected by age discrimination and employment. host: the thoughts of tony there. we found a letter in a publication, and it comes from a bill read of virginia beach. we will not read it, but it makes the point that social security and medicare are not entitlement programs. one question, when did social security become an entitlement program? when our employers paid fica? i do not understand how receiving payments from these programs in old age is an entitlement. the payments were mandatory. it is estimated that through

2010, social security deductions exceeded benefits and pay. rated, it made clear budget liability. it is breaking both a phase and an american public who had no choice since the assumption of these programs. the people of the u.s. versus the congress of the united states. mark is calling from miramar, florida. good morning. try -- let's get to mark in a moment. beverly, are you there? you are from north carolina. mark, hang on the line. caller: i guess they call them entitlements because you paid, and so you are entitled to retrieve this money.

but of course, they are mandates that the government spends whenever they want to. so, this was the plan. the plan is, it has been called for elimination. cutting and eliminate all programs, and then introducing the need for a dictatorship. this has always been the agenda. and bebless america, careful who you vote for. host: thank you for your call. mark is on the line. , given i find it ironic the social security you pay into all these years, to call it entitlement. you have billions of dollars to pay for subsidized housing and universal health care on our dime. every year, billions of dollars

go to these places. that.ey are going to cut they are talking about taking away from the american poor. and democrats, because all who you vote for. we have to stop putting republicans in the space. put democrats in blue states. it is common sense. that is all i have got to say. thank you to everyone who called for the first hour. lots of debate coming in congress and the white house in the months ahead. they will be back in early january. coming up in a minute, we will begin a series, a holiday series on authors. let's talk first

>> inside the cabinet, inside the administration, to make that removal. obviously that would be the mechanism for that to happen. not people in the senate, not pundits, not other folks. inside his own white house. >> well, tom, like you, i have sources and i've worked my sources. believe there are some who have had this discussion. now, this is both outside the cabinet and in. plannk it's the fallback plan for the establishment. that's why i'm trying to sound the call. an enormous to see irresponsiblee

stories smearing the president jobyou know, non-up to the and so on. particularly if mr. mueller and miss.ot so i am being realistic about resolve ofeve is the many in the political establish ment to remove the president under any means necessary. talking about?we is it the secretary of state, the defense secretary, vice president? >> like you, tom, i cannot re veal those sources and i'm not so.ared to do but this is not -- >> i'm sorry, i'm sorry. i'm not asking you to actually reveal your sources here but who are your sources telling you? the people that would be doing this? >> there are members of the cabinet who have had this discussion. it at that.leave >> can you tell us which cabinet

talking about? >> no, not at this time. i will probably report that again,t some point but, plan a that there is a foot that is broader than just the cabinet. now, the 25th amendment requires majority of the cabinet and the vice president. achievementk that's able today, not on the heels of the historic tax cut, not on the heels of the dis integration of the credibility of the mueller investigation. but we have seen what happens upn hysteria is whipped among the people by some in the mainstream media. always thought this is plan b for the two-party duop has run this country into the ground and deep ofresents the election donald trump. >> "washington journal" continue . host: back at the c-span "washington journal" table is frank buckley who is the author

book, "the republic of virtue: how we tried to ban corruption, failed, and what we can do about it". thank you. welcome back. frank: thank you for having me. host: so, tell us why you wrote book, "the republic of virtue," why you wrote it now, and what are you saying here? saying is that fascination,e a problem, with the idea of political corruption. political corruption was a big deal when i was writing the book. it was then a story about the clinton cash machine. that was a huge story in 2015. stories took its place. but it's there. and we had a moment when we were countryoncerned as a about what was happening to us in terms of corruption. we are a country of secret romantics. the onery cynical on hand but on the other hand we want to be better than that. we want to have a government where people, public officials, look after the rest of us. we don't think we have it but we

that. that's a sense of corruption use.i or virtue. i mean, by virtue i mean republican virtue, the way the framers thought of it. that's the virtue of the public after thethat looks public interest. don't quite have that . host: how has corruption impact ed the current political in this country? frank: well, it's a complicated issue. the one hand it has to do with our structure of government the framers felt they were going to give us a government that would banish corruption. that was the idea. a very, verye have powerful executive. and when that happens, it's for the executive to sit on scandals, wait them out, and then announce that there's smidgen of evidence which is what we've seen in the past. kind of built-in corruption with respect to the way laws are made.

the classic example was obamacare in which every senator seemed to get some kind of a .oody there was that, i guess, and the certainly. well, so we see private interests, corrupting government or at least diverting it from what seems to be the thing that of us want. and then we have the problem that sometimes we make things corruption.acking sometimes what we've done is which might laws give too much ammunition in the hands of prosecutors who political.are very and who go after political enemies and that's a form of .orruption host: let's invite the viewers at home to phone in with their and comments for frank buckley, the author of "the republic of virtue," also a professor at george mason university, the law school professor there. he's been good enough to come back on this saturday to the

program. wanted to dig into something you've touched on a little bit bit deep get a little er, part of the book you write about the executive branch of power ination the executive branch increased the possibility of corruption at level.hest frank: that's right. host: take us deeper into that thought. frank: well, the comparison is parliamentary systems. if you're in a parliamentary system, prime minister, you're the brick bratz thrown at you in the house of commons. if you are the president of the , in order on the other hand, you can retire into the white house, keep the press bay, sit on information until it becomes steal and in all of these ways wait for ray away.tion scandal to go people do it, presidents of either party do it very effect ively. a way in which the structure betrayed us. the structure the framers wanted deliver us from corruption. it didn't do that. host: you also write the separation of powers created a november he will form of corruption in which -- novel

which leadruption in ers wastefully earmark money local districts. frank: that's right. we saw that with respect to obamacare. gettingsaw lobbyists their two cents in and more with respect to the tax bill that day.d the other so these are the sorts of situations where, you know, you did we everer how get here. host: to the piece about what we do about it, the subtitle of to book -- before we get calls -- what would your basic prescription be for fix is the see?ems you frank: well, two parts. one is the laws we have going after ordinary citizens don't work. cause more corruption than they cure. what we should be doing is concentrating on the people are on the levers of power most carefully and that would be lobbyists. dothere are things we can with respect to lobbyists and their influence over congress. ed, first callto , new jersey republican for frank buckley.

morning. ed, are you there? i think we lost ed. see if bill is there. bill is in florida, sebastian florida. you there? caller: yes. good morning. host: good morning, sir. you're on with frank buckley. caller: yes, mr. buckley, i'd like to mention to you the fact on the get your opinion appointments to the supreme court and the controversy that mother had when she was the head of the e.p.a. is that a form of the corruption that you're pointing out? frank: well, not really. i mean, the controversy you're talking about happened, what, 30 years back involving the mother .f justice gorsuch i frankly don't know who was right and who was wrong in all of that, although it is her song which i guess

--k a great deal of homage umbrage in but i don't recognize that as corruption perhaps enough i don't know about it. host: what do you think about the process that it took to get to the court once away,e scalia, passed well more than a year. the senate majority leader ofonnell -- some critical minimum him, many critical of him, not allowing a nominee to and finally it happened later. frank: well, gosh, they were playing politics. right? i want to distinguish between people who have an idea pursuingause and it, which was what mitch mcconnell was doing in holding areearings, from people who holding up proceedings and putting money in their pocket. so that's the kind of corruption talking about. host: you did talk about lobby ing earlier and making changes to the process.

us deeper into your think ing there. what kind of fixes or changes advocate? frank: for starters, there's nothing dishonorable about being because congress come to town frankly knowing beans going on so they need to be told you're backing this bill but what you want to know is what it will do to employment in your district, information.ul but distinguish that from the case where the lobbyist has a special in with a congressman the lobbyist is putting money into the congressman's pocket directly or indirectly. he can't do it directly but what lobbyists can do, for example, is contribute to political campaigns. prevent that from happening. so got part of lobbying, providing information, yeah, let do that but the other part , getting special access to a congressman by virtue of your political contributions by the prospect of a job offer, that's about.ng we should think

host: lisa in hem sted, new york , democratic caller for frank buckley. .ood morning lisa, are you there? listia, if you could turn the sound down on your set and then go ahead and speak, we'll be able to hear you better. .aller: oh, ok host: go ahead, lisa. caller: yes. he pointto know why do out the faults in the democrats the it's obvious that republican party is totally corrupt. ryan, all the money he takes, all the money know,hey all take, you why is it so important for him the corruption in clinton --a and bill

host: lisa, let me make sure i understand. what is the money that "they" take when you're referring to speaker? caller: from the coch brothers and the fact that they're doing this big transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich. mean, that's totally corrupt. i mean, it's what the donors cl- .ant frank: i think what we want to do, lisa is distinguish between pursuing anre ideological agenda, which you disagree with, from people who an agenda just because it's going to make them rich. so i'm interested, for example, comee kind of people who to town and end up a lot richer after some years in government before theyre started. with respect to the policies of paul ryan and so on, you can disagree with them but that them't necessarily make corrupt. you can also say i don't like the way they are getting money but, youain groups know, both sides contribute parties.political in the last election, the democrats outn spent trump by i guess about

$1.5 trillion -- or i gotn to $1 billion -- my numbers wrong. nothing wrong with that. i mean, in alabama, roy moore outspent 10-1 by the democrats. that's fine. host: would you consider ofrself a big supporter president trump? frank: i would consider myself a supporter. dot: how do you think he's ing so far? frank: so far surprisingly well. i mean, the tax deal is huge. the only thing that gets done in four years, that's still huge. be more.nk there will host: how about his efforts to put it?e swamp as he frank: the swamp is a lot deeper than we thought, i guess. right? and things don't happen all that easily. you have to remember, there are a couple of different republican parties out here. presidential's party but then there's the congressional party. be --good example would well, an arcain provision of a tax code that prevents hedge capitalagers to pay gains tax instead of what i think should be income tax.

was something that trump campaigned against but what he congressional republicans are -- and the lobby ists. this what do you make of piece "the washington post"? citing a poll the american view house asump white the most corrupt government institution. half of americans believe the in theion is pervasive white house under president trump, a sharp increase over last year from a new survey. now see trump and his top officials as the most governmenticials in despite his pledge to drain the swamp. how do you react to that? frank: i think it's simply false here's the test. remember i said a moment ago the test is whether or not you make iney or lose money government. trump's wealth has declined by last twohird in the years. part of that is the real estate market but part of it is his longer on the till of running his business. sons.iven over to his so not much is happening there. and he's also become one of the

most hated people in the country , which is not good for business. don't think that's corruption. look, i'm not going to defend polite guy int the world. i'd be crazy do that, right? but i think i want to say i corruption.at as i think when people are asked questions like that, they treat i like himstion do or not. but they're not asking, is he getting money in his pocket? because he's lost money. greensboro, on to north carolina, republican line for frank buckley. devin, thank you for waiting. caller: thank you, guys. i just wanted to thank mr. buckley for his book because i think it should be preached to all the schools in america. this is what is wrong with now.ca right we have these big corporations, just like courts, who can go in and knowd their wealth that you can only last so long in the ring. of america who is and making barely anything

wants to be active in the political scene and vote for people who would get into office and do the right thing morally, compassly, you know, doing it for the american people instead of having someone with a billion dollar corporation coming in and spread their wealth and say, i need this done this way and we can give you this in a campaign contribution. across theuilding street from the capitol where and call to make donations half the time. so it is something that is about finance. it is something that is about just moral compass of voting for the right thing, to doing the americanng for the people. we've had job acts and everything held up in the senate , you know, the house a passing this but senate is hold ing this it's a give and system. we know there's lobbyists, special interests. hey, i'm an african-american man who is under the media in ways of basically poverty -- medium wage of basically poverty i voted for barack obama because he said he was going to get rid of the lobbyists and special

interests. that. not do now we have this businessman running america. i love trump. male.n african-american i believe he's doing the right things just like he wanted the interests out. out.uldn't get it why? he ran into what mr. buckley congressional republicans who have these big special interests in corporation s and developers giving them campaign contributions to vote a certain way. and, yes, wall street is in that also. and the last caller who was african-american and who wanted well, the about, oh, republicans are crony, greed, getting this money from big corporations, well, wait a minute. most of the big companies in liberal.re they give to the democratic party. can't say that it's this side or that side. sides.th host: thank you for calling. devin laid a lot out there. frank: yeah, i love the suggestion of you thought every school in america should have a copy of my book. you run with that. i love that one. and i basically disagreed with

said.hing you except for one thing. and i'm going to disagree with .ou here right now we basically don't have any contribution limits in of what you can give. there are so many end runs around it. and my problem with all of this who gets caught is a small fry. so what we have right now in our it's likeinance laws, a net where the big fish sale sail through and the small fish get caught. so the big fish know how to do it, right? they have their lawyers, they negotiate through the complex rules. can findmall guy himself being made into a felon by giving money inappropriately if he had a lawyer beside him, he could have done it properly. so the reality of what has we basically abolish ed campaign finance but wefor rich people haven't done it for poor people. and when that happens, and you prosecutors with a political agenda, then you have another kind of corruption, the

campaign lawsre rigidly.ced too host: moving on to deidre in euclid, ohio, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. hello? host: yes. on the air. what would like to say? caller: i'm sorry. good morning. would like to ask you, what do is think about someone that in the white house that has had in this field, has been a mayor, he has not been a governor, he has not been , he is running the ?ountry like a business for me, i do not understand how lawmakers can allow this to go on. things andhas done

if everybody follows this sexual thing that's been going on, everybody's been pulled down and drags down but nobody has went .ace-to-face with him on it i really think that you say virtue then, that's where you need to start. we got somebody in there that knows nothing -- host: thanks, deidre. frank: you're right although you're making political points corruption, per se. one reason why we saw the people coming from really nowhere in the political system in 2016 was just because we were so fed up with the idea of corruption. that's how you get a bernie sanders challenging hillary clinton. didn't even call himself a democrat. or donald trump or ben carson. outsiders. and that they rose and became so in 2015-2016 tells us here's how we feel about

corruption. sick to death with what we saw going on in washington. and we thought in the case of the guy who go for is the out outsider. so all the things you say are think that's why most americans wanted trump membersration or most of the electoral college. not: you wrote a pierce -- note, trump is not a populist. himself whatall by are you saying here? frank: there's a tendency to don't like you populist. trump is not the kind of forkist you see in a pitch ben tillman or huey long. but he went out of his way to talk about how he wanted to be inclusive as to all americans. campaign. he ran his worldwidelism is a phenomenon. it's something we've forgotten about. the republican party had become

internationalist. we stopped caring about immigration. tradepped caring about deals. that's exactly what trump oppos ed. that made him a nationalist. with nationalism. nothing wrong with saying let's start protecting americans first host: what drives that, do you think, in the president? frank: in his case? i think is the opposition to a republican establishment from a guy from york., new you know? who doesn't talk like the rest town and whothis doesn't hang out with them and hangs out with very different kinds of people. wanted that. i mean, that's how he got part.d, i think, in host: jim in springfield, ohio, independent caller. jim. caller: hi. i would like to know, will you talk about corruption? for example, in the news this morning, we had [inaudible] from

f.b.i. intong the question about them being .orrupt and we'd know that [inaudible] pleaded guilty and everybody is great trump isow of mr. flynnntment , when in fact, he was be compromiseould ed by a foreign country, one that we've been for over 50 years. that's not corrupt, what is corrupt in this country? frank: i think once again what on are ideological differences rather than differences with respect to political virtue. one thing about the campaign that was quite clear from the beginning, i say this as somebody who helped with some of was let's change our relationship with russia. if there's something good that can come out of it. and what the good thing might be a cessation of all the bad stuff russia has been doing but there are ways in which

helpful andmight be that's a context in which flynn was chosen the national security advisor. when he was chosen, however, there were things about flynn know.dn't one didn't know things about his , his ls with the turks ying to the f.b.i. was a piece whomupidity from a person let us concede to is not the knife in the drawer. host: virginia beach, virginia, republican, another jim for buckley. good morning to you. caller: good morning. and thank you for take mig call. welcome.'re caller: i'm calling because i'm and i have,ployee , and takesince 2009 several classes -- several times , sexualn ethics trafficking, sexual harassment, things,hose types of and yet when i hear things coming out of congress, and i blame both parties because it's

system, where these guys -- there's one set of law, one for forelite and another one everybody else out here. and i'd be curious about your comments on that. thee as an employee, i see disparity between people like hillary clinton getting away with things like uranium one, the f.b.i., weapon nizing the i.r.s. under obama, and those types of things i'll listen to your response off the air. thank you. frank: thanks very much, jim. thing.say one i fully agree with you that hillary clinton has been, ethical buts than one thing i wouldn't want to see is any kind of prosecution. know, it's a third world country that puts people in jail for practicing politics. want to go there. we don't want to go there with hillary clinton. we don't want to go there with donald trump. right? let's not make practicing politics or ideological of crime.s matters and in the case of hillary, that's mostly what we're talking

about. bigger point, you're just a regular guy, woulding for the federal government and -- working for the federal government and what you're say ing is the big fish seem to well, yeah, that's my point. and that's an argument, in fact, for simplifying everything. recommendedhat i was let's get rid of campaign general.aws in i'm quite happy with anonymous contributionss people call it, you know, dark money. i have no problems with dark money. right? what i do have problems with are people like the lobbyists who special influence by virtue of their contacts with .ongressmen financial contacts, in other words. buckley is our guest , author of "the republic of virtue." books.thored several he is a citizen of canada who also became an american citizen in 2014, april of 2014. so speak to us more about the

versus thery system system we have in this country as it relates to this whole of corruption and virtue. frank: we're descendents of the framers and i teach courses on the framers. i love those guys. it's a marvelous set of lectures liberty.ructure of and what they wanted was -- they loved britain, in spite of everything, but they didn't want a british king and they didn't want british corruption. tothey thought we're going give you something that will banish british-style corruption. nextver the course of the 200 years, the brits cleaned up became, perhaps , likely more

test test. hypothetical mississippi story is what you write about. the mississippi courts have a long history, taking it to the people from out of state. tell us more. frank: mississippi is a nice example of a corrupt state. an.getting awards or settlements from out of state defendants. that's an obvious kind of corruption i think. what i found interesting about mississippi was the following. when i dug deeply into it, what

i found was some of the same people who are on the side -- who were the trial lawyers in mississippi 10 years back were people who came from the same as the out and out racists of the 1960s. and the modus operandi was the same in both cases. we're here, we're local, we have our own network of judges. everybody is part of this and we don't talk to outsiders. we don't talk to outside agitators. we keep it all quiet. that's the scandal of a dickey scrubs. and what brought dickey scrubs down, by the way, he was a trial lawyer in mississippi, was he tried to bribe a judge with an offer of employment for law firm after the judge left office. that's exactly the same kind of corruption i'm talking about when i say that a lobbyist who offers a job or hints at the possibility of a job to a congressman gets that special kind of in with the congressman.

10 years back with respect to trial lawyers. it was only the feds who could come in and ensure that would be honest. so federalism enters big-time into the problem. and often it's a matter of the feds stepping in to correct corrupt local institutions host: frank buckley, our guest to hele something called scholar and writers for trump. remind us what that is. frank: that was a group of people i organized almost for my personal amusement before the election. people at that time were saying, you know, the thing about trump is he's a complete, you know, fill in the blank. and there's no intellectual who would support him. and i thought, wait a minute, i can come up with a few people. so in the end, we came up with

about 160-odd people. they were academics. they were a few younger scholars with real political courage. there were a bunch of retired academics who had nothing to lose. and maybe there were a couple of people who sought personal advantage on getting on a winning team. but we came up with it and the reaction was, whoa, this is weird. [laughter] host: on twitter, ask frank, that's you, why trump doesn't have to show his taxes when everyone since nixon has done so? frank: i think he probably should show his taxes. i'm not going to get too worked up about it. what you would want to know is is he somehow making out like a bandit out of his office. i think the answer is clearly no. so that's the heart of it right? if you're saying, gosh, you know, if we had his tax return, we could see exactly what kind of gifts he made to charity.

well, that's small potatoes. the real question would be is he somehow diverting the tax policy to benefit himself personally? he's lost so much money, i just don't see that. host: calling from new york, independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i have something to say about what frank made a comment regarding trump's campaign and trump himself as being inclusi inclusive. i saw it as the absolute opposite. i mean his 2008 movement, for me, was laying the groundwork for his 2016 campaign. dan jones referred to trump as a racial tonguist -- opportunist which i think is very appropriate. trump also claims fake news. we all saw the footage of his speeches, real footage of his speeches. and during his speeches and during his campaign, he called hatredness and divisiveness.

for me he's nothing but a conman and has many victims. so my question is, how do you see him as being inclusive with all of the comments that i just made, factual comments that i just made? frank: correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think you like trump. did i get that right? listen, i can tell you something about that. i advised on campaign issues back when, year and a half ago. i was trying to persuade the campaign. there's one group you should pay attention to here. it's the swing constituency. that's catholic voters. and what we were told was, no, we're going to focus in the trump campaign on three groups evangelicals, african-americans, and hispanics. and i thought, ok, what about other groups? and finally they did stuff with respect to catholics. but, no, the campaign was really focused on trying to correct the perception that trump had racial issues. and if you go through his

speeches, he goes out of his way again and again and again to deny all of that and to preach inclusiveness. so i really don't see that, frankly. host: mike, carry, north carolina -- cary, north carolina, republican. caller: good morning, mr. buckley. how are you? frank: well, thank you. caller: i've been on the trump train for a while so i'll leave it at that. my question -- let's get back to the topic and stop bashing the president here. but regarding corruption, regarding doing an end run around the consolidated power in washington, d.c., as i'm sure you're aware, there's been a movement afoot for several years now and one of the key leaders of it is former senator tom -- i always mix it, coburn from oklahoma. it's a movement, article 5, convention of the states this could go a long way in addressing a lot of this stuff you're talking about. corruption, balanced budget, term limits so on and so forth.

i'd love to hear you talk about it. frank: well, i have a lot of friends who are really interested in an article 5 convention. i haven't paid a whole lot of attention to it and i'll tell you why. i think it's possible we might get such a convention. i think it's extraordinarily unlikely, however, that anything would come out of it because what you would need, as you know, is 38 states agreeing to what the change would be. you know, what's the chance of that given how divided we are? i can think of a lot of things that i would like to see come out of the convention but what i want is probably not what other people want. i'd like to see moves towards what madison wanted, which is more of a parliamentary government. i think -- i don't know if anybody agrees with me much on that one. so i just don't see the result, an agreement coming out of that. host: democratic caller out of michigan. hi, elizabeth.

good morning. caller: i agree, everything's on both sides. i don't think there's ever been a time in history where you should be blaming one or the other parties. whether you have all three branches under one control of one party or not. but the corruption i see, whether it's just in thought or whether it's a criminal corruption, but to me it's the congress. it is the congress that is one of the biggest faults in this country. and i i don't know how this would go but i swear i think the best thing they could do instead of all of these commissions about bridging back benghazi or bridging back this, they -- they need an independent study, i feel, of everyone but structured that -- fix it. the way they withhold legislation from coming to the floor and what they do to each other on tv, they don't think they don't look stupid to us?

both sides. i just think they need to fix it and then i don't know what it would be. bring tie vote of the states on, you know, one of the major elections that come up whether it's the one between the presidential or the presidential elections. they need to fix it. host: thanks for calling. frank: thank you very much. i'll give you my quick plug for a parliamentary system as opposed to this the thing about the parliamentary system is when you're running for office as prime minister, you're running across a whole country. and you control who the [indiscernible] are going to be. you don't like somebody, you turf them out. that doesn't happen here. you have these independent power bases that's how you get a paul ryan from wisconsin who might be completely opposed to what the president wants on a whole variety of issues. he's got his power base that doesn't exist in a parliamentary system. paul ryan would have been turfed out of the party or else he would have been more compliant

with respect to the prime minister. so that eliminates one kind of problem. when you have these kind of independent power sources, then you're not concerned about the country. you're concerned about your local district. and that's a source of corruption. and as well, there's one other problem with separation of powers. and that is, it produces a lot of finger pointing, a lot of irresponsibility whereas if you're in a parliamentary system and things go wrong, you got somebody to blame. right? you vote them out the next time. but here, you know, think of our shutdowns of the government and you have the president pointing his finger at congress and vice versa and you don't know who is to blame. host: you write about technology in the book. here's part of the passage, technological change in the rise of democracy, broke down the electoral process that were expected to filter out politicians frank: i'm talking about technological change.

when the framers were around, they never thought we would have candidates after george washington. something the framers really didn't think would happen. and in that case you have a centralization of all the power in washington in the white houst much of the power in washington.

host: thank you. and republican caller from massachusetts. caller: thanks for having me on. pleasal me know have a brief conversation before hanging up. only a bit of corruption. i think it's the biggest i can think of is a perfect example is how g.e., a multi-national government contractor would benefit from large government. owned nbc during -- they had the stories they wanted people to hear so the government would grow and they could get more revenue from government and to force people to use products rather than innovate.

frank: you'd be talking about the social media giants and people have suggested that we should take a look at the amazons and the [indiscernible] of the world and maybe break them up and so forth. that's basically about the last thing i'd suggest doing. restrictions on what people cou

mr. trump, he admitted he had been touching women in their private parts. -- with trump and

all of the different lies that he told, 1000 miles, that is corruption. what do you think about that? i disagree with you, i'm afraid. i think that maybe bad behavior. to raisetainly enough eyebrows. it is not the kind of corruption i was talking about. what i was talking about was money under the table. i don't like this guy because he is not a nice guy or a fight a supportbecause of his -- because of his policies. but corruption is a different story. host: there is a question about whether you would vote for trump again? the: the tax plan -- guest:

tax plan is enough for me to vote him again. host: mr. buckley is the author of "the republic of virtue." thanks again for being here at "washington journal." guest: -- guest: thanks for having me. it's about 9:00 on the east coast. when we come back we will talk to bury friedman --uri friedman. also later today at 4:00 eastern time, an event from recently with sebastian gorka. he talked about the current war, as he put it facing the u.s.. here is a short look at this event. gorka: this is an ideological war, focuses on the fact that killing terrorists is

great. we love killing terrorists. it's great. but is not a metric of victory. you can kill a jihadi with a , --s like -- drum strike drone strike. you have 16 guys who volunteer. any longern no one wants to become a jihadist. that is victory. war,like during the cold we must defeat the ideology. saint john paul in margaret reaganr and ronald delegitimized the ideology of communism. we must do the same with global jihadists. i look forward to talking about

focusing our efforts with our muslim allies -- especially the jordanians -- to undermine that ideology because that will be the ultimate victory. churchill was right when he said you do not go to war -- you do not go to war unless you define your victory conditions. if you don't define your victory conditions, you will never know if you have one. what are victory conditions today? as far as i'm concerned, it's very easy. i my book "defeating jihad" called the threat we face today a new kind of hybrid to tell a terrorism. it is links, it has an active tissue to the fascism of the 30's and 40's and the communist of the cold war. they may have been secular, anti-christian, but this religious to tell a terry

nizam's because it is a two tablets arianism. if you disagree with the jihadi's, just like if you disagreed with the nazis, there is one option left for you. if you do not surrender, they will destroy you. what we face is a new to tell a terry and threat. it's not islam. anyone who says it is islam has no idea of the muslim world. they should travel through indonesia, saudi arabia, to pakistan to see that there is no monolithic islam. we have to make sure our muslim friends can defeat the atavistic seventh century version of islam that guides groups like al qaeda. journal"ngton

continues. host: joining us now, we have uri friedman. that you writece livesay quote from the council on foreign relations, and it -- livesay quote from the council on foreign relations and it talks about the u.s. and the war. it is quite a twist. it says the u.s. is now the most unpredictable actor in the world today. what are they saying? guest: i was really struck by that. fr, the council on foreign relations, has been doing this for 10 years. they look at the sources of instability. this year was different. we had to factor in the united states because we just cannot know how the united states is going to react to a given situation. i would say that donald trump,

the source of this unpredictability because it is hard to predict where he will go on different issues might be very happy with this assessment. he has said for years what he wants to be is unpredictable. it keeps his enemies off balance, which in some ways he likes. s point of view they said, is the united states is a source of instability, it a rations and conflicts with north korea and with iran. host: we will put the phone numbers on the screen as we talked to uri friedman from "the atlantic." he will be here for about 30, 35 more minutes. they have a way of putting top-tier zombie world watchlist. what are the top-tier threats to

the u.s. as far as the cfr and your report is going? yes, they surveyed a lot of government officials and policy officials and the big toeaways, the top conflicts watch involve north korea and iran. north korea, i cannot emphasize enough how much probability there is this could come to a head in the coming year for couple reasons. as people know, north korea has been advancing technically. they have missiles that could potentially hit the united states. they have done six nuclear tests and the seventh could even more -- in that case they would become a direct threat to the united states. , the other big one is iran.

we have always, since 1979, we have had a conflict with iran. it's a long simmering saga, right? the big differences donald trump says we don't like the nuclear deal barack obama negotiated and we will decertify, which meant it went to congress and we might with draw from it all together. what that can mean is not only do we not have a nuclear deal, but there is nothing restraining .he united states because of that, because those constraints have been lifted becomes. is what this host: storm clouds are gathering over the korean peninsula. he told soldiers that the u.s. military must do is par by being ready for war.

says says that -- mattis chancelomacy is the best to avoid war. mattis has been out front saying we have military options but we really want to try diplomacy. there arent out that divisions within the trump administration. if you listen to h.r. mcmaster, national security adviser, he has been more aggressive than defend secretary mattis, talking about how he reserves the right to use military force, and he says time is running out, that we are trying to put pressure economically and diplomatically on north korea, but if that does at work, we could be in military conflict seen. there are divisions in the administration. of thepoint out the head marine corps did a visit to norway this past week and had pretty ominous words. to the marines, we may

have a big war coming. he pointed to two theaters. one the north pacific where korea is, and russia. it could be a conflict with russia and eastern european allies. that has been on the back burner. the u.s.-russian relations are not very good right now. there's a lot to talk about. north korea, in kc mystic, "the new york times" and others reporting -- in case you missed it, "the new york times" and others reporting about this vote of 15-zero. this is the u.s. security council and the human. guest: the trump administration has been able to impose three rounds of very tough sanctions that are increasingly more severe, isolating north korea

economically. this last one affecting transportation fuels and north broughtorkers who have foreign currency to the government will have to go back to north korea within two years. so this is very tough sanctions in the trump administration has managed to convince two holdouts to impose the sanctions baird one is china, north korea from neighbor and really controls 90% of trade with north korea. they have a lot of economic leverage. russia.second is china gets less notice in , but russia actually has better relations right now with north korea because north koreans present china.

russia, in a, all the north goes internet traffic, it to russia. the russian companies. russian companies have a lot of influence, and the fact that -- itave joined the u.s. is a credit to be trump administration saying, we need to do more. we -- host: democratic color for uri friedman. good morning. fort: thank you to c-span taking my call. merry christmas. i have two comments. i don't really view north korea as that big of a threat. they want to develop nuclear weapons and even trump made a speech at the union that said every nation has its own sovereign rights. if that's what they're going to do, that's what they're going to do.

if they go to war after that is anybody's guess. it's good to be prepared and waited out. the second point, i think, to me, the biggest conflict is israel. supporter, butp i did congratulate him on recognizing jerusalem. the only way i feel that this conflict is going to be resolved is to recognize the palestinians do have rights. it is occupied palestine. i fear this is going to shed light on finally resolving this conflict by recognizing the palestinians and giving the rights back to their country. host: thank you for calling. the color brings up jerusalem, the embassy. speak to that big news that

erected the last couple of weeks. the reaction to it, and what it means for 2018. this decision will not end. that is not the end of the story. we saw that last week when the aighted nations voted on resolution to essentially condemn the trump administration's decision, and they were very aggressive saying, you guys vote for this resolution, we may not give you eight, we will isolate you, and most countries voted in favor of the resolution anyway. that was a real global perspective the trump administration. i think what the trump administration would say is, israel is our closest ally in the region. it has a capital that is not recognized by the international community where every other country pro capital is recognized by the international

community, we have been trying peace for decades. we are no closer to peace than we were before. they would say it with -- it was time to do this. this could potentially throw a wrench in the process or it may be we can create some kind of new momentum. that's their argument. it is a realre is test case of assumptions we have had for decades about what would happen. we always assumed what would happen is it would alienate arab allies who are, you know, in favor of the palestinians getting their own state. but we have the arab spring and the bloody aftermath of that. iranian-saudi proxy battles going on throughout the middle east. the white house is more concerned with the issue of

occupation than what the u.s. does. what is really interesting, saudi arabia is getting in closer, secretly, with israel because they have common enemies with a run. will this do anything more or will this peter out? i think that is testament to the fact that the region has changed a lot. while this conflict needs to be addressed, is not top of mind for most leaders like it was 10 years ago. touches on that on twitter. he says now that israel and saudi arabia are best friends, the embassy will not result in any negative ramifications. [laughter] guest: mike, what is on your mind? caller: i went to speak to the north korea it issue. if we got into a global

conflict, what guarantee that we would have the allies and support to fight in a global were with them? i feel like we have not had a lot of support with this. we would need quite a few people to join us to actually take on this conflict. i would like to see what your thoughts are. thank you. do you think the u.s. needs a lot of support? -- host: thank you. you think the u.s. needs a lot of support? guest: it needs the support of certain countries. seoul, which is a huge metropolis, isn't firing range. you need buying by hand from your close treaty allies. neither of those countries wants military conflict, especially

south korea, because any military conflict could escalate . there are hundreds of thousands, potentially millions could die if this was an all-out war. no one was a military conflict right now. the u.s. has been much more aggressive. japan has been a little bit in the middle because they really theythere is a threat and are a little further away from north korea and missiles have been tested over their territory, so they feel really threatened, but both of those countries really want economic rusher and isolation, and i think there are so many implications to the military conflict. i can't think of one country right now that is advocating as aggressively as the united states is.

diplomatically they would isolate themselves. guest: -- out: president trump laid the strategy this week. >> we are engaged in a new era of competition. contests aret playing out around the world. we face rogue regimes that threaten the united states and our allies. we face terrorist organizations, networks.nal criminal powers that rival challenge values.

we will attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries, but in a manner that always attacks our national interest. i received a call from president putin of russia, thinking our country for the intelligence that our cia was able to provide them concerning a major planned in st.k petersburg, where many people, perhaps in the thousands, could having killed. they were able to apprehend terrorists with no life loss and that's a great thing and the way it is supposed to work -- that is the way it is supposed to work. but while we seek such opportunities of cooperation, we will stand up for ourselves and we will stand up for our country

like we have never stood up before. uri friedman, reactions? guest: i was really struck by that. i was at an event where h.r. our holiday from history after the cold war is over. i think what he meant by that is we are in a new era of pitched national competition, national rivalry in this weird anomalous period after the cold war. the united states had its way around the world and now the argument the president was making in that speech is, no, this is a battle and we have these revisionist powers, like china and russia, that our competitors, and i think that is a big change. host: we have the caller. we will get your earpiece back

end. .e have this -- nato on edge this is a story that says russian submarines have dramatically stepped up activity around undersea data cables, a more aggressive posture that has caused nato to revive cold war commands. what you make of that? guest: russia is building upon on his borders. they feel threatened the nato has been rotating troops through that is after russia intervened in ukraine, so i think they are feeling that coming up states is right against their borders and they need to push back and do their own military buildup. one of the big things to watch in the year ahead is that russia and the night is states are at loggerheads.

to bany have a treaty these, disarmament treaties, and now there is the question of who is violating it. that's not good either for people who are concerned about the. i think this is a recognition that russia and the united states arrivals, competitors, and are kind of reselling at each other right along the border. more on russiaet and the little bit. let's get gary in from baltimore. hi. caller: i think that the world order that has been developed through the international norms and adherence to those has been throughroblem because

our supposedly leadership in the world, we have actually operated on appeasement. we have had week leadership. now we have a real leader who is transactional, who understands business transactions, understands political transactions from going way back to his involvement in politics early on in his life. theuld not underestimate intelligence, i would not underestimate the leadership of president trump, and i think that this unpredictability thing , alls talking about tweets of these things that the media, this russian collusion, all these things are trying to get back to the international norms, trying to get back to the global

order the establishment has been going with, but basically it is appeasement and it is weak leadership. needs strong leadership as teddy roosevelt said. speak softly, carry a big stick. host: thank you for calling. once you're from our guest. guest: i think that's a pretty good encapsulation of what donald trump said during the campaign. he talked about what teddy roosevelt said. build ofd reagan, you the military to make peace. one of the big storylines presidency iss this vague idea but the idea the world war ii the united states has led a system that involves free-trade , and donald trump has

argued that that was a drain on u.s. resources, that this was a bad deal for the united states and the were freeloader allies and were getting wealthy .trong trump was not the first to say this. barack obama was also saying spendinges were not enough for their own defense. in some ways he has questioned the us, the big thing about free trade. he has really questioned that. he withdrew from the tpp, this big trade deal. takenited states has really hard lines on what they want in that negotiation, but in other ways, they have stayed the same. he gave a speech in south korea in which he praised the alliance

said it was a wonderful thing and really echoed what a lot of previous presidents have said. in some ways he is challenging it. and other ways he is holding steady. host: from oklahoma, craig is on the line. morning.ood thank you to c-span for their efforts. it is an honor to speak with mr. friedman. i want to speak to priorities. first, we know that iran in their aiding of terrorists and with their korea missiles, they are at the number one level. but at the number two level, islands closerng to japan. china is encroaching on one of our allies.

this is not going to be a hot war, but i think the solution might be more cold. i wanted to get your view. trump, i liken him to eisenhower. type -- get iton done type of leader. what you think about encroaching on those islands. they are the islands of allies. do, how we going to will that be resolved? host: thank you for calling. guest: that the great point. the question about china's aggressiveness was a first and second tier concern. these are sleepers. arguing that she champagne, this big leader of

the communist party basically established himself as the most powerful leader since about it -- since mao. and now he may be more aggressive beyond their borders. north korea, because the united states needs china's help cracking down and isolating north korea, is diverging they want to get really top to get china's help with north korea. ist is basically happening china wants more control over these areas. are putting more sand on islands.

they are creating airstrips and military installations. other claimants, like in the , dispute these. in south china sea countries like malaysia and vietnam have claimed these as well. this is a big deal. example, $3 billion of trade is there. this is why the united states has been doing these movements. two iran now. we have an independent caller of "thefriedman atlantic." i followes, my son and the international scene pretty well. a lot of things are happening in

russia, and we have come to the conclusion that the obvious answer is probably japan will be re-armied in the near future. are we right or wrong? they are going to engage in some military buildup because the threats are just increasing for them. for example, china has been incursion into their airspace and japan has had to scramble fighter jets. they have built up with other military installations in the east china sea. north korea, the open question, seek nucleary to weapons if they get to the point that china has a nuclear weapon -- if north korea has nuclear weapons. china would hate that. could trysouth korea to get their own nuclear weapons and redeployed tactical nuclear

weapons, which the u.s. used to do, in south korea. that's basically battlefield nuclear weapons, not the long-range weapons. -- i think that that is still very speculative. on the other hand, japan a might feel compelled with a neighbor that's an adversary that is nuclear weaponed. this is one of those instances where we are decades away from world war ii. the mindsets are changing. just have to be defensive in nature? we should build up our military because we have a whole new host of threats. turning ae tide is

bit, i'll be, because it is hard to -- albeit is hard to talk this feeling. there's a lot of pacifism in japan. a u.s. officials saying lethal weapons are headed to ukraine. u.s.will soon have more resist russia. the obama -- the obama administration really resisted this. they had these armored vehicles that the ukrainian forces could not really counter that is now reportedly being provided, and this is a -- you know, this is not something russia is going to

be happy about, but donald trump has talked about the need to work together with russia and the big international challenges that require russia's help like north korea, terrorism, counterterrorism. i think for example, i am not sure donald trump would, himself would completely support the move. he certainly has not talked a there areukraine, but other officials within the administration who feel very strongly about this you have a thinking ofonal russia as an adversary and this is an example of them winning the day in terms of being able to do this. i don't think donald trump is the ultimate -- i don't mean that don trump is not the ultimate decision-maker. but this is not something they would have been able to do. his advisers would have had to convince him.

was change the borders by force and this is an example of push back against that. this is a move that could antagonize relations with russia. caller: -- host: john is calling from washington, d.c.. caller: if you look at every country today, the leadership is not the most qualified people to run the country. -- i think the conflict will exist, but before we have a conflict, we should have a leader who knows what they are doing and how to solve the problem quickly. but right now, i believe the most important thing is an economic issue. every country where you see there is a problem there's economic issues, and that it is

up conflict -- then it is up a conflict between neighbors. they have conflicts about water problems, but unless we caused thewhat problem, it is started by incompetent leaders and that is the biggest problem we have. guest: leadership is an issue. a former government official in venezuela has a great thesis, living in thee age of the end of power. what he means by that, power is more difficult to old. known as the power they had decades ago because of the disruptive nature of the internet, political polarization -- you could name a hundred different factors. leaders do not have the power they used to.

in some ways that is good. mostld say potentially the would be angela merkel, who is able to retain high levels of support, the economic -- the economy was doing well. he could do potentially that she could do potentially controversial things. she is struggling to form a coalition government right now. who upave been leaders and able to get things done and have managed to maintain support levels enough to continue winning elections. with thehat has to do way that power has diffused in recent years. we see that with donald trump and the united days. .e is taking risks

but his poll numbers are not doing great. in thes the question midterm elections whether he will be able to take bold conditions because of the politics involved. there was an event here in washington, d.c. talking about president trump's foreign policy. [video clip] >> for me, the concern as we are receiving international leadership at different levels. while the president is making america great again, he is doing this with transactional activities without a conference of plan of how the individual components for transactions actually fit into the pattern that is cohesive and continuous. it depends on where one goes in terms of the impression other countries have of us. if you go to japan, i think the

minister would say that he is very fond of president trump. if you go to our european friends, less so. if you talk to the prime minister of australia, he is worried the united states no longer can be counted on to fory the leadership role democracy and we need to continue to fill that role. is we are seeing a wrecking ball being taken to the institutions we have worked very hard to construct. host: wrecking ball to those institutions, he says. ways, yes.ertain i would not make it a blanket statement. on trade, the u.s. is fundamentally saying we are not point to do free trade the way we use to. it used to be the leader.

i think that has changed. democracy has changed, too. lot, fakeroubles me a news -- they're of the mistakes made by journalists. there will always be mistakes made by journalists. there is more negative or positive coverage in the media. that is fair. but president trump has been railing against the press in a way that, i think, makes the u.s. less of a defender of the whilem of the press and the trump administration has called out human rights vale-ish -- human rights violations, but i do not buy the argument that donald trump is an isolationist to his retreating from the world completely. they are leaving the international response to north korea. donald trump has met with dozens

and dozens of world leaders and has been very active. he is advancing a new theory, which is nationalism is very putrtant and america will its interests first in a much more assertive way. the united states is still very active to the world stage. i think there is less of a priority on this idea that we need to maintain an international system. this thinking that if other countries do well, we do well. i don't think donald trump sees the world that way. i think he sees it differently, which is this is competition and we want to look out for our interests first. hi, good morning. attendeddering if uri

or saw the putin year-end -- for 90 minutes i saw it on c-span, thank you very much. for 90 minutes, president putin addressed the media. something donald trump could not do yesterday before he went off to mar-a-lago, first thing. i was wondering if uri saw that. second, the one road initiative, is very rare do you hear americans speak of this. i will even know if they are aware of that, what china has done. when trump went over, his first act was to destroy, dismantle the tpp for the rest of the world. trump got his trademarks along she got her trademarks. and 28 pages, recall that before

the election, trump came out, oh, yes, we should vote against the saudi's, they are the ones that cause the december -- the september 11 attacks. trump insisted those pages be shown to the american people. all the republicans wanted the 28 pages shown. as soon as trump's eye and he goes over to saudi arabia and bsing would be people who attacked america on september 11. now we are to be friends with saudi arabia because they are going to attack it ran and now why are we picking the sunnis shi'ites? host: thank you. guest: i did catch that putin press conference.

he did talk to the press for 90 minutes. i would say it's not the kind of that we wouldce want in the united states. there are a lot of questions that he would like that allow him to shine in show he is in caged. on the one hand, that is a positive thing to say about the united states, but on the other praise is a clear way to donald trump on economic performance and that worked well for putin appeared on the question of one belt, one road, that's a really important thing for people to pay attention to. the u.s. continues to have soft through the world friends and its promotion of democracy and human rights. china has economic soft power. road is a huge

infrastructure investment around the world. it is investing in africa, latin america, buying a lot of goodwill doing that and getting a lot of influence in a way that the united states used to be doing in a more concerted effort. china's reachsing and power in the world and building a lot of support for somethingentially interesting to watch as the china model. of a more authoritarian political structure. that is a big chinese initiative and they have had a lot of success with it so far. is the seniordman associate editor at "the atlantic," the atlantic.com.

we appreciate your time. it went really quickly. thank you for your information and insight. guest: thanks for having me on. host: we have just under 20 minutes left. we will take a short break. here is the number to call -- we will continue to take comments via social media. , which means you can talk about any topic you will like -- something you've heard this morning or anything we have not necessarily talked about. what we wait for your calls, we want to remind you that this weekend and throughout the week, c-span will air programs on , and coming upns today right after this program, we will look at racism in

america, during which palace will talk about resisting racism. here is a short look at that. bei would say a do has to loving yourself. ,nd realizing that my dignity my goodness, my word is not dependent on my standing on someone else. fact god's children , that is where the dignity creature good god gave to us in i do not have to worthwhile.ne to be you are born with that. it comes when you go down the birth channel. you bring it with you.

i am not made a better man or i can sayan because at least i am better than -- i have to love myself simply because i am convinced god made me lovable. >> you told me about this one time in atlanta. in ayoung white ally said recovering racist. i'm going to a multicultural church. i don't see any hope. this older woman stood up and said, that's white privilege. so a retreat to cynicism is what --don't do, but the hope

hope and optimism are not the same. not optimisticm about how things are looking right now. that ared about things happening, but hope is not a feeling or a moot. it's a decision you make because of this thing we call faith. has to actommunity every day when there's not much optimism around. how do you not retreat to cynicism, which is a privilege, for those who have to survive it? have you act in hope? journal"ngton continues. program at 10 p.m. eastern. now. we want to get started with another piece in the news. the headline says daca allies

are furious, pressure to democrats to keep their vowel about the dream act. they are facing backlash from their party for not offering a permanent solution. and oution advocates in of congress are railing against those who voted for the stopgap bill thursday, despite promises from democratic leaders they could force action on the issue before the end of the year. a group of house democrats burst into the office of senator charles schumer, demanding and it nation. kaine"ers "shame on gathered in the office of senator tim kaine. "everything will democrats who voted for the continuing resolution just voted to deport dreamers and leave kids without access to health insurance,"

says at the director of credo action. "it simply it is a pathetic way for the party leadership to in whicha year millions of americans fought the trump administration's dangerous and xena phobic -- xena phobic bic initiative." caller: hi. i am calling because the more thisc-span, the more i see information about social security. for everyone who has google, all you need to do is go on google --put in the words "ssa" social security administration -- assets. it will take you to a page or

reports.he trustee there are $3 trillion in social security assets. , i'm wondering why c-span never has the social security trustee on to talk about social security. -- that $3 trillion would be invested in government bonds, which means is part of the national debt, so out of $20 trillion we owe, we oh $3 trillion to social security, , ryan has noe itention of ever paying back. that does not belong to the republicans. it belongs to everyone who ever paid into social security. thank you.

we have an independent caller from michigan. caller: thanks. wecerning uranium one, all need to do is look back and realize that barack obama, knowing all you did -- he is a smart guy, he wanted hillary clinton to be his secretary of state. that all got done. what didn't get done, and this -- and the former president needs to be asked this question -- knowing all he knows , why did he not appoint an inspector general at the state department? that will be the key point. about one talking position. were talking about a department of 300. also your government will tell interimnever you have or you would say not appointed inspector generals, that is when all of the corruption and those

.hings start to unfold this question has to be asked of the president. i can't take any journalist seriously right now until those questions are asked. timothy geithner, the head of the treasury department, and means to be called in because he was the over serried -- he was the overseer of the board. we have corruption. we definitely have corruption, is barack obama or anyone not over anything. we don't have kings in this country. host: caller. caller: good morning. i really enjoyed your program with mr. buckley. c-span for having really knowledgeable and qualified people on your to put out information to the american people. and i agree that there is

massive corruption in our government. and i think it all gets back to the framers saying the kind of government we have here in america would be for people that would be virtuous, and without virtue, we cannot have freedom think oneacy, and i k ofhe ways to have this lac corruption is to have way more transparency. someone comeshen to congress and they start taking the money and they are , everything they make should be out.

people who have been there for years and years and years, and where that money comes from, all of this requires honesty and open transparency by people in our government, and until we get also, i think one of the reasons americans are having so much problem with their a lackent is a lactic -- of education. i think the public schools have failed the american people. host: cornelia, thank you for weighing in. we want to get a few more voices before we run out of time. hi, bob. caller: think you for taking my call. merry christmas and a happy new year. i have been associated with the government for about 80 years. 80 years. and i can't understand what is going on, and i've got one thing

to say. the old saying, all talk and no action? can come up with is all lies and no action. do you hear me? host: we hear you, bob. i just can't quite put my finger on what is going on in this country. i'm a veteran of the korean war. that lady that was just on talking about the school, the way that they are taught in .chool is a good idea and i'm going to leave you on this note. why 71% oferstand the adults cannot name the four

presidents in south dakota. thanks for taking my call. the caller alluding to the rushmore. here we have a tweet from the wichita eagle front page which shows president trump signing the tax bill at the white house yesterday. calling this a tremendous thing for the american people. here is a tweet. saturday morning. expected to stay in mar-a-lago through the holiday here. the telegraph herald from --uque, iowa, their headline charities and tax preparers brace for changes. a bank here in

$1000ate of iowa giving bonuses, a huge surprise to 260 employees. that is in "the telegraph-harold." with randy on the line from clearwater, florida. hello. hello. merry christmas, everyone. ands calling about daca dapa, the parents of those illegal aliens that came to the country. , the law states that anyone crossing the border deported.shall be there's no way around it.

the president and the house and the senators and the constitution -- but obama, you that did it anyway, and should not be. you know, green cards and stuff. host: ok, we get the point. we want to move on to salem, oregon. republican caller. hi, nolan. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: what i would like to say

is in the recent tax bill, no democrat voted for this. said they wanted a tax bill. for the last eight years the democrats of the white house and for two of those years they had all three branches of government . what are they not bring forth or propose a taxable during that time. why do you think that is? caller: because i don't think they favor tax reductions. i think they want the government having more money and them running all the programs for the people. last call. morton. hey, morton. are you there? morton, i'm going to try one more time. i would ask you to turn the sound down on your set.

think morton is there, but we that wouldmorton, so have been our last call for this segment of "washington journal." we will be back, as we are every day at 7:00 eastern time tomorrow. happy holidays to you, everyone, and we will continue with our regular programming schedule now with a segment on racism in a couple minutes. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> ahead on c-span, a look at the role of religious leaders in addressing racism. then journalists address the challenges on covering hate

groups on college campuses. after that, we show you some of the holiday festivities at the white house. ont on c-span, a discussion the role of religious faith leaders can play and confronting racism, bigotry, and sexism. speakers include john lewis and archbishop wilton gregory of atlanta. this was hosted by georgetown university. >> good evening, everyone. for thee president union ministry here at georgetown university. welcome to the spiritual heart of colleges with community. this chapel is the physical faith oft of the deep our catholic university. in this