-- there was some clarity given. what is also clear is what is troubling to me is the fcc is still not the expert agency. it is still not the agency that has any background on when it comes to a common carrier or net neutrality regulation. does not answer or come into play unless harm is done and unless you can prove unfair or deceptive practices. to beare high hurdles able to realize or to bring to the ftc. >> watch the commission -- the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> this morning, it reporters roundtable on the week ahead in washington with stephen dennis of bloomberg and a reporter from

the national journal. discussestin sullivan implementing the new tax law. as always, we take your calls and you can join the conversation on face that -- on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. host: the house meets a new and today. the senate convenes at 3:00 p.m. we begin with the efforts to move ahead the plans to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum later this week. those plans have caused concerns on capitol hill. the u.s. could be heading towards a damaging trade war. are yousking you -- concerned about a potential trade war?

democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media on @cspanwj. a good monday morning to you. you can call in now about whether you are concerned about a potential trade war. paperse headlines from this morning. the washington times, trump critics,dit, -- bucks proceeds with tariff. it is time for a change, talking about the president's announcement that he would impose tariffs on steel imports and aluminum imports. on the financial times, calling it a blow to canada and the

united kingdom. europe repairs retaliation. rise.tlantic tensions this came to a head on thursday when trump met at the white house with executives from u.s. steel and aluminum industries and talked about imposing these tariffs this week. [video clip] >> we will probably have everything completed by next week. we will impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. you will see a lot of good things happen. said you would be expanding. all of you will immediately be expanding if we give you that level playing field and give you that help. workers and more your workers are going to be very happy. what has been allowed to go on for decades is disgraceful.

disgraceful. when it comes to a time when our country cannot make aluminum and steel, and somebody said it -- you almost don't have much of a country. without steel and aluminum, your country is not the same. we need it. defense, if you think. we need great steel and aluminum makers for defense. , sometimeobably see next week, we will be signing it in and you will have protection for the first time in a long while. he proceeded to tweet throughout friday and the weekend and this morning. his most recent tweet on this weic from late yesterday -- are on the losing side of almost all trade deals. friends and enemies have taken

advantage of the u.s.. time for a change. make america great again. two tweets before we came on air this morning. we have large trade deficits with mexico and canada. nafta has been a big -- been a bad deal for usa. steel and aluminum will only, off if new and fair nafta agreement is signed. also, must treat our farmers better. mexico must do more on stopping drugs from coming into the u.s. 10t was the president about or 15 minutes ago. we will keep watching his twitter this morning. it seems to be a topic on his mind. are you concerned about the potential trade war? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

dennis, las vegas, a republican. go ahead. caller: i want to say i am tradened about having a war, but our country does need to go in a direction where we control our destiny. it is a decent idea, give it a try. that is how i feel. host: should anybody be surprised by this announcement from the president? belt, he gote rust a lot of votes there. i am not concerned he is trying to do this. i used to live in the allentown area. it was a ghost town. i would like to see it come back. journale wall street featuring one of those steel towns in braddock, pennsylvania,

the focus of this story. they welcome the president costs plan -- the president's plan. he told the wall street journal it is going to be great if we are able to compete against these countries on the same playing field. better wages and benefits come from this. , aworks at u.s. steel complex along the monongahela river. walter is in bridgeton, new jersey. independent. go ahead. [indiscernible] hello? host: keep going.

are going to wind up paying through the nose for this. host: why are you certain about that? we are not making steel here anymore. anything you buy has steel and and he is messing up a good situation. that's the way i look at it. you think the situation as it stands now, it is a good situation? caller: yes. host: andrew, kings mountain, north carolina. , i don't am calling know how many people know it, canada has a $5 billion deal with boeing to build jets after trump put tariffs on canadian

lumber. germany had a contract with to buy computer technology. they canceled it and went to china. trade wars never work. it will cost the american people more money to buy the goods. tony, braden 10, florida, republican. go ahead. [indiscernible] host: why is that? caller: [indiscernible] tony in florida. the president sending out various officials to the sunday shows yesterday.

navarro heads the u.s. office of trade and manufacturing policy saying while there could the exemptions for some business uses, there would be no carveouts for individual countries in the tariffs, dealing a blow to allies such as canada, the united kingdom, and south korea. as soon as you start exempting countries, you have to raise the tariffs on everyone else. the story noting concern from theresa may, raising those concerns in a phone call with trump on sunday, saying a multilateral solution was needed to resolve the global problem of steel overcapacity. ae you concerned about potential trade war? dave, frederick, maryland, go ahead. caller: the tariffs we are going to impose will come back and bite us because our exports will

them goingriffs on to other countries. i am sure his financial advisors are going crazy. the consumers are going to be paying more for house goods. it is another case of trump trying to create more chaos. twos going to help maybe industries and hurt a lot more. host: judy, baltimore, democrat. go ahead. put out a lotwill of things in the media. aboutne gets into a tizzy some policy he wants to implement. put itlk about it, together, and he takes on everything they said and then he makes a policy. he is nothing but a mouthpiece. york tyrone, new york, new

, go ahead. line for democrats. caller: this is a distraction. the american public has a hard ate chewing gum and walking the same time. he wants to get our minds off of the mass murders taking place in this country and the situation with his administration being in disarray. whole -- wanting to charge people for more steel coming in is just a distraction. would be 25% tear's on steel imports. 25% tariff on steel imports. 10% on aluminum. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

showing you some of the bipartisan concern from capitol hill. here are a couple of republicans tweeting their concerns. leonard is from new jersey saying i support free and fair --de, but tariffs would kill would be a huge job killing tax hike that new jersey taxpayers cannot afford. agriculture sector has seen its income cut in half. it will be hit hard. the president should reconsider this course of action. california,al from the call for terror's on steel and aluminum are dangerous and will lead to an international trade war. that can be disastrous.

brian is the senator from hawaii, i am not a. free trade guy. what the president is doing is dangerous. one other democratic senator on the sunday shows yesterday, chris murphy, ask about the about thent -- asked announcement, whether he thinks there is a national security threat when it comes to u.s. steel production and how much we are bringing in from overseas. [video clip] president needs to recognize none of these actions take place in a vacuum. china has been dumping in the united states for art long time. when you need the chinese to be the heavies on north korea, you are jeopardizing american

national security interests. it is also a gift for russia, who loves it when the united states and europe starts to split. there are times when the sanctions are necessary, but you have to do it at the right moment and realize none of it takes place in a vacuum. show you more reaction from members of congress through our first hour of our program. are you concerned about a potential trade war in the wake of the announcement of these tariffs on steel and aluminum, expected to come this time -- expected to come sometime this week. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.. aaron, indiana. caller: how're you doing? host: doing well. caller: i have disagreed on a

lot of different issues, but i agree on his tariffs of aluminum and steel. i am from the rust belt. we have been affected out here. a lot of people lost their pensions in bethlehem. he could turn some voters around if we can get on board with single-payer medicare, you know? daniel, independent, lincoln township, michigan. caller: i have four quick opinions. ce, c-span is great for --on folks for me to have great for common folks like me to have a voice. the tariffs, most of those other countries are supported by their

government to subsidize their businesses. here, we cannot compete because they pay their workers 20 sent to $.30 an hour, no benefits. plus, any time they raise or lower taxes here, the american people, we end up paying more. in the iron and aluminum business. it is hard work. i like working hard. the best thing to do is do not distract. investigation -- let this robert mueller investigation go through. be friends with everybody. mexico and whatever. they are our allies. do not get them mad at us.

if there is a war, they will say the united states -- they are treating us like we have never .een buddy buddies put those sanctions on russia. we know what russia did. don't worry about iran and north korea. an effort tol this distract. what about those who say he is delivering on a campaign promise? i have seen a lot of presidents go through. you have to. they keep about half of their promises. times change from the time they make the promise to the time they have to fulfill it. , whirlwindast-moving economy. things change.

i did not like the pacific alliance. we should have looked into it. jumpings looking and into it, or nafta, that was not great. make deals. i thought he was supposed to be the dealmaker. i don't know what the republicans are watching. i haven't seen any of that. tom, fort lauderdale, florida. a republican. go ahead. caller: there is a culture of taking advantage of the united states in this world. donald trump is bringing that to any and d. -- to an end. lies. say trump one thing he does not lie about, that is his campaign promises. those of the statements and things that mean something. it will not be lost on

voters. you talk about allies? not have of ally will equal trade terms with the united states? that is an ally? gimme a break. china, let's be afraid of china. let's play the chicken game. we should tell china if we have to make the most incredible missile defense against north korea because you want to reserve them as a client state, by golly, you will pay for it. not us. host: what do you mean by equal trade terms? is asking forump is if they charge us attacks, we will charge you a tax. let'shave equal terms. do to us, we do to you. if we are allies, why are we doing anything to each other? the europeans are the

isolationist. all we do is apologize. we had a term for people who are criticizing from. we used to call them chickens. i wish these chicken trade people would get back in their coop where they belong. host: that is tom this morning. palace intrigue in the white house in the wake of this announcement. the washington times noting sparked divisions within the president's administration, prompting speculation that gary cohen could resign as a result. more reporting about the back story there, saying the disagreement over potential tariffs between gary cohen and came to arro, who

head in the oval office in january when gary cohen, peter navarro, john kelly and rob talkr sat in chairs to about it. gary cohen tried to argue these marketuin trump's stock cohen, but trump said uri was a globalist while he was an economic nationalist. was ad gary cohen globalist while he was an economic nationalist. fight,atched the occasionally saying things like i need to take care of my base. you cannot have a country without steel. he did notporter realize he was such a globalist. trump decided he needed more information about the economic effects of aluminum and steel. as we saw last week, he made that announcement alongside

steel and aluminum executives from different american companies. we want to get your thoughts this morning. are you concerned about a potential trade war? scott, colorado, republican. caller: good morning. i agree with the president. we should have border tariffs on everything, especially the automotive industry out of mexico. put a large tariff on it. that will discourage that and we will have factories coming up all over the country and we can all get a job. it will be great. host: what kind of work are you in? caller: i am a house painter. host: have you been out of a job because of the effects of the global marketplace or trade? like the poorest borders. i have lost a lot of work to

illegal aliens. host: how are you doing since the beginning of last year? since the beginning of the trump administration. caller: things are looking up. it is getting a little better all the time. richard, massachusetts, independents. go ahead. what gets me is when people call up about the tariff, now,e they wanted it and when he is trying to get it, they don't want it. it is a tennis game. what aggravates me is he wants to level the playing field. theyhave no problem when want money to put taxes to raise our taxes, but they whine about the allies we have, and we are going to raise it on them. when they raise it on us, it is

a different story. they do not care. i am tired -- i am disgusted with this country and these crybabies. the democrats, all they do is cry. , out of herosi mind. i am fed up with this country. am glad iars old, i am leaving this world. you have a good day. nighttime in malley, hawaii, but john is up. go ahead. thank you for c-span. i am from oregon. in oregon, we had about five aluminum plants, big ones. they moved out and were using bonneville power. bonneville power was making $1

million a month in electricity .ff of these aluminum plants they moved out, what happened? the electric bills went up. the aluminum plants or subsidizing the electric hills. -- electric bills. to theis moving here united states. why? it is costing them more to build a car in japan and as it is here. when trump went to china, they treated him with royalty. why? they need us. we do not need them. time to bring our jobs home. another situation, freightliner portland,n in oregon, moved to mexico.

they are building class a trucks in mexico. they are building junk. they are bringing them across the border. it is about companies making big profits. been should have never signed and never been agreed to. it is time to look out for the united states of america, comes first, to hell with the world. we do not need them. they need us. host: linda, st. louis, missouri. good morning. myler: thank you for taking call. it would not be bad if our president thought through some of the things he does. this will affect all of us, not just steel and aluminum workers. when i started working, we had , american steel, youngstown, we paid all of those bills.

he wants to talk about campaign promises? mexico was was that going to pay for the wall, but he is trying to stick us with that. i would like to retire. i would like to know how i am going to survive. theythings going the way are today, the tariffs are going to be an impact on all of us. have a good day. , fullerton, california. go ahead. my grandfather worked in the steel industry in youngstown in the 1930's. my father worked out here in los angeles. thing about los angeles, until all of this exporting of industry overseas, los angeles was the main producer of steel, automobiles, tires, furniture, clothing. you name it, they did it. you punched a hole in the

ground, brought up enough oil and that fueled the factory. as for steel, they made quality steel. the steel industry built cities. it was quality steel. in the 19 70's, my father was working in the steel industry and it started to dry up. they used epa to restrict the production of steel. it coincided with the introduction of foreign cars gaining dominance in the united states and the outsourcing of steel to those countries. you can bring back steel production. we did it before and we did it well. trade wars, they will lose. there are more of us than them. we have the technology and we have the workforce, and we can quality steel. we can make our own products again.

this is not something in the misty past. this happened in the 1970's, 1980's. we are not that far from it. we can restore it now. as thoughlk about it it is a foreign policy issue. this is private. this is capitalism. that is what drives our country. i am not afraid of a trade war. i do not think we will alienate any country. we are done with wars. we need to restore our country. , seere it with boundaries our country not as an empire, but as a nation. thank you for taking my call. we are coming up on 7:30 on the east coast. are you concerned about a potential trade war? you can keep calling in. we keep you updated on some of

the other events today in washington and later this week. the president expected to meet , makingjamin netanyahu his second trip to see trump at the white house. from the wall street journal, the president not expecting to roll out his middle east peace plan. it is unsure when the administration might present the plan, but they said it will be presented some point this year. the washington post focuses on the banking roles that may be loosened in senate votes this week. a potential possible rollback of dodd frank provisions. we can talk about that in our week ahead in washington segment ahead. we will be joined by steve josh. and

also up for discussion in the next hour, we will talk about the upcoming election taking place. the texas primaries are tomorrow. the beginning of primary season. the lead story focusing on democrats facing primary shove from a new left. the texas races one noted in that story. a special election in a southwest pennsylvania congressional district appears to be and neck -- appears to be neck and neck. are yousking -- concerned about a potential trade war stemming from the president paul scott and the white house last week -- the 's comments at the white house last week.

[video clip] >> we were not treated and have not been treated fairly. i do not blame the other countries. when i was in china, i said i have a lot of respect for president xi. i don't blame you. if you make 500 billion dollars a year off of our country, how can i blame you? someone agreed to these deals. we are bringing it back. we will bring it back rapidly. we are going to institute tariffs. next week, we will be signing. perhaps some of you folks will be here. the great aluminum companies represented at this table have been decimated. aluminum has been decimated in this country. host: we have been showing your reaction since that meeting.

international reaction coming in as well. callresident on a phone yesterday with theresa may. give us a call. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. ellicott city, maryland, democrat, go ahead. are you with us? caller: can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: we can agree to one thing. he has no thought about any of his policies. it is not following through if you just throw things out in a meeting. his advisers, half are clueless about it. he does not think through it. building the wall, the policy everythingtariffs,

he does, he has no patience and he does not think through things. everyone is running around like what are we going to do because he does not have a policy. i wish the american people would realize we are 5% of the world population. the previous caller said there are more of us than them. exporter,uge agriculture, motorcycles. the european union said they tariffs on three things. it is not as if he had a big plan to help shore up the steel industry. that would be respected. if he is going to continue to have a thought and throw it out there without thinking about it, we are starting to wise up and realize he is a bit over his head. on twitter, johnny writes

most would be willing to pay extra for products made in the usa because that is who we are caller:. do you think that is true? is who webecause that are. do you think that is true? caller: i think that is true, but donald trump used foreign he does not hire american people to work in his resorts. it would be nice if the president demonstrated this ability. most of us would pay more if there was a way to guarantee it is american steel. made in the usa, i think we would pay more. for those in the midwest who are donald trump supporters, walmart is the biggest violator. the walmart family are the ones

who started this whole thing, where they build everything, made everything, and brought it back cheap. they decimated shopping centers. they were all unions who paid pensions. of giant food was not a multimillionaire. he shared the wealth with his workers. the new billionaires in america are the problem with america. host: tj writes what the trade wars begin. they need us more than we need them. seems people want to go back to the 1950's manufacturing. another write-in democrats are be side themselves. they want life to be the way it was under the global list's. thoughts.ur

give us a call. ed, myrtle beach, south carolina. go ahead. i am listening to all of this. i am old enough to remember when things were made in america. we were rolling. buy, it is made in china. your bed, your furniture. .ou cannot find anything i don't mind spending the money, but i hate buying chinese. everything is chinese. it does not matter what it is. with from.re you will find out this so-called trade war is nothing but a bunch of bs. we will get it. we will get it.

we will put people back to work. you mean concerns about a trade war? caller: there is nothing to it. -- i watchednton about clinton last night and that nonsense about monica lewinsky -- how much money did clinton get when he signed nafta ? when he signed favored trading with china? what kind of money did he put in his pocket? and the people in congress who voted for it -- how much money changed hands? host: are you implying votes were bought or in terms of what they made off the deals since then? what they gave clinton, how much money they put into his campaign, into the clinton foundation, how much money did these people give the

congressman, senators, everyone who voted for. gloria, bridgewater, new jersey, republican. anybodyi haven't heard talk about the infrastructure we are supposed to be building. don't we use a lot of steel and that? host: you are concerned about what this will mean for the cost of that? caller: absolutely. people talk about it as if it is nothing. we have demand for a lot of things. there are different qualities of things. trade wars cost a lot of money. people who do not think you have to work together and with a different country are full of. -- are foolish. back to trump, nothing he talks talk or suggests, they

about, even the news people, what he promoted when he was running for office. fence, thebout the proposal has been made for the fence. there has been a proposal made that is good, but it is not what he is promoting. it goes on and on like this. there isn't depth to anything he does. host: more of your calls in a second. the lead editorial today in the washington times, the editorial board usually supportive of the trump. here is what they have today about the potential tariffs. standing up for america first is a good idea for any american president, if the president will not protect blue-collar factory jobs, who will? the steel and aluminum tariffs

are counterproductive. steel tarifff the announcement, prices have risen 20% on this lot market. 2 million american workers in industries that use steel and aluminum, such as automobiles, trucks, and heavy machinery. interestsdifferent and must be taken into account. imposing tariffs can be a precursor of a trade war and it is fullest to want that trade war. -- it is foolish to want that trade war. caller: thank you for taking my call. that steel mill and braddock, pennsylvania. i was making $13, $14 an hour. those jobs dried up in pittsburgh for a reason. there was problems with the

.abor union the city decided to go a different route after those jobs dried up. pittsburgh has gone to technology and banking. you see pnc bank's all over the country. i live in georgia now. all over a lan up. they are from pittsburgh. it is a big corporation. as far as steel, steel is not coming back to pittsburgh. pittsburgh does not look to embrace steel anymore. pittsburgh is going in another direction. do you think you would have been in the steel industry longer if there were terrorists back when you were working and would it have helped you keep your job? i don't think so.

it was in the 1970's. technology, the digital age was starting to develop and people in pittsburgh were trying to embrace the technology. they were looking for better ways to do things. pittsburgh,y in everything was going away from the steel mill. there was a big thing about the labor unions back then. it was a big thing about fossil environment. pittsburgh wanted to get away from that. they have done an excellent job doing that. host: are you glad you work in the steel industry -- you worked in the steel industry? it was a good job of the time. it was good money. , as i hard work, but thing back of it, it was bad for

the environment. i remember coming out of work metal flakes all over your car from the stacks where they were making the steel. it was a dirty job, a hard job. host: if you had a chance to talk about that 36-year-old union president who is shown in that story, what would you say to him? caller: this is a different day now. then, i remember it was -- we were having problems with the labor unions then. i don't know what it would be now as far as how they deal with the labor issue because i am sure it would be cheaper for them to bring steel from overseas rather than pay the workers here.

host: bill, georgia, evans, georgia. go ahead. regarding the trade wars, you have to look back to when nixon went to china. .e got what we wanted we wanted to turn it into a country like ours, economically driven. sometimes you have to watch what you wish for. the woman who calls from california, talking about industries that were there, most had to go away because of the epa. most people would not want those types of industries back. it would be expensive to retrofit factories to clean up the environment.

the way i think. as far as trump, what he says, he is going to start a trade war. he did not get to be a billionaire by paying more for goods than everybody else. he went to low-cost providers, which is what most benefits and -- which is what most businesses do. you have to be cognizant of where your money goes. if i buy a box of cereal, i buy the brands on sale because they are alike. that is what i have to say. about 15 minutes left in this segment of "washington journal." we want to hear more from you on this potential trade war. we also want to update you on other stories. at washington times looking

gun sales since the beginning of the trump administration, calling it the trump slump. -- in our next segment, we will talk about the a vote on gun legislation, when that might happen. steve and joined by josh. stick around for that discussion. this story and nbc news. the grand jury investigating collusion between russia and donald trump's campaign has sent a witness subpoena involving all documents and the president's host of advisors. robertpoena was sent by mueller. investigators want emails, telephone logs, and other logs

going back to november 1, two thousand 15, 4 .5 months after trump launched his campaign. the subpoena seeks documents that have anything to do with steve bannon, rick gates, hope and roger stone. about 15 minutes left this morning for this discussion. we will pick up some of these other discussions in our next segment of the "washington journal." outwhite house has sent officials to the sunday shows to talk about these upcoming tariffs on steel and aluminum. wilbur ross was one of them on abc's this week yesterday.

here is what he had to say. [video clip] like political allies believe this will hurt their voters in their states. paul ryan warning against under attended -- unintended consequences. saysall street journal this is the biggest policy blunder of the trump presidency that will cost jobs and consumers. >> that is not true. let me give you numbers. not mean much until you put them into numbers. is $175erage car, it increase that is the maximum that would come from a 25% tariff increase. similarly, all of the other

products, the total amount of about's are putting on is $9 billion -- amount of terrorists we are putting -- tarrifs we are putting on is about $9 billion. the idea of retaliation, they of retaliation, but the amounts they are talking about our pretty trivial. some 3 billion odd dollars of goods the europeans have threatened to put something on. that is a tiny fraction of 1%. an individualt producer for a little while, overall, it will not be more than a rounding error. one other vote of confidence came across the aisle. joe manchin was on face the

nation yesterday. he likes where the president is going on this. we are talking about fair trade. worked wellas not for west virginia. we lost thousands of jobs and we are talking about a fairness for the system. do you think it is fair? are you concerned about a trade war? richard, huntington beach, california, republican, go ahead. theyr: i tell young people do not know what is going on. guys -- has-- you been around forever. not everybody in town had a television. they did not get the news the way they get it now. we used to go to a movie. they would have news. that is how you got the news. when something happened around

the world, a catastrophe or something like that, you would see newsroom. all of the cars are fords and chevys. we manufactured most of the cars for the world. what do we see here? , everything except american cars. i remember when i was young, the second world war, things that came from japan were trinkets at a carnival. the junk that we would buy that was made in japan. they moved up to cameras. they took the camera business over. in springfield, massachusetts, the indian motorcycles. the war has been making money off -- the world has been making money off of us for a long time.

i would be willing to pay more money for a product made in america. the stuff you get in china is junk. madeed to find stuff not -- i don't know if they know what quality means over there. we used to pride ourselves on making quality stuff. now we don't even make junk. we don't make anything. caller: good morning. i am concerned about the fact many of the callers seem to steel all comes from china. our biggest amount of steel comes from our neighbors from the north. canada. they are flabbergasted by the idea that the president would exemptedhey not be

from this tariff of 25%, which could injure their economy. a lot of canadians do business over the border daily. going to costco, buying gasoline. us, theget angry at economies of the northern states is being severely harmed by this tariff. if there were an exemption for canada, is that something you could get behind? caller: no. i think it is a terrible idea. i understand, from listening to wiser heads, that tariffs like this start trade wars and trade damaging to the countries involved in them. host: fran, a chart showing u.s. steel imports in the tops -- and the top 10 sources.

share comingest from canada. then, brazil at 13%. south korea 10%, mexico 9%, russia, 9%. five percent. germany, 3%, india, 2% of u.s. total steel imports. robert, salem, oregon, republican. go ahead. are you with us? ben, hudson, new hampshire. in to: i want to call say, china has been attempting to undercut the american economy, especially with replacing the petrodollar with

of globalin terms trade. it seems as if the united states is trying to lower china into a them into anlure actual war. as soon as china responds to american tariffs, the people will feel the results. even if the u.s. economy are doing well, things for average americans are difficult. as soon as americans feel the results of chinese tariffs or on china, weffs are going to start complaining. host: why would we want a shooting war, if that is the end goal here? a militaryare industrial complex. our economy is based upon military might. that is what we have done

through the entire world. protect ournd to economic interest. do not have the ability to stop china from undercutting us economically. we cannot. they can do it through legitimate ways, they are a glowing -- a growing economy working with resilient and india. if we start a war, that, we can win. that will allow us to hold on to our economic might. that is my concern. host: larry, michigan, democrat. caller: hello. i am a retired auto worker. i worked for gm for 32 years. we were the first in this country to fight nafta.

i live in michigan. you, it has went from one thing to another. people in this country would not support the auto workers. you have to support your own country. that is a fact. host: do you feel this president is doing that? a high he is living in dream. he is 30 years late. all these people that voted for -- thisy are living work is not coming back, this industrial work. the president might disagree with you. one minute ago he tweeted -- to protect our country, we must protect american steel, america

first. caller: he does not stand up for businesses and everything. he does not use american workers or anything. that was larry, michigan. chuck is in colorado, a democrat. good morning. caller: hello. i wanted to say the chinese are using soft power while we are still using military might to steal middle east oil. that is what invading iraq was about. the gop is guilty over presiding over the outsourcing of american jobs, and dismantling our u.s. industrial base, as well.

investorst called the things like leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers. they used it to part out american companies and sell them company,foreign countries, where the labor was cheap, like a junkyard will they do this to american companies by imposing -- by imposing a management fee on them after they took over. the management fee would break the back of the company essentially, bankruptcy of they would have to lay -- letting employees go. then they close the doors. host: we are running out of

time, bring us to 2018 and how you're feeling today. there is the relocation tax credit which is still in effect. the democrats tried to do away with it during a republican filibuster during the obama years and that thing still chainsaw al dunlap and all kinds of people, companies that are once american and are now overseas. butnecessarily china vietnam and other places where labor is even cheaper. maybe a recommendation for an upcoming segment will focus on that topic. our firstdo it for segment today. up next, we will discuss the week ahead in washington from the white house to capitol hill and we will be joined by the political editor of the national

journal and a senate reporter from bloomberg and later, we will discuss the implementation of the new tax law. "washington journal all coming up this morning on the," we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> tonight on the communicators, democratic fcc commissioner mignon clyburn discusses the fcc rejection of net neutrality. toctrum auctions and how expand broadband throughout the u.s..

she is interviewed by brian fong, technology reporter for politico. is a bigeek, there court decision involving the ftc authority and whether it can sue at&t for its alleged misrepresentation to consumers about unlimited data. what lessons do you draw from that court ruling and particularly, about this loophole involving the common carrier exception? side, theresitive is one less loophole, meaning the court gave some clarity as it relates to whether or not , a mix of ahority common carrier or not. clarity given there. but what is also clear is what is still troubling to me, that

the ftc is still not the expert agency. it still is not the agency that has any background of when it comes to common carrier or net neutrality regulation. the ftc is still the agency that unless harm is done and unless you can prove unfair or deceptive practices. hurdles forry high security systems to be able to realize or forge or bring to the ftc. communicators" tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. "washington journal" continues. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] host: monday morning on the washington journal gives us a chance to discuss the week ahead in washington and we are joined uer and stevea dennis. one thing we are not expected to

see debated in the senate is the issue of new gun-control legislation. why will it not be on the floor after so much discussion over the past 15 days or so? guest: republican leaders wanted to do a small package and maybe have some amendment votes where their gunls could get controls voted on and the conservatives could get things like conceal carry voted on and ultimately, that would have meant a small bill going to the house. they wanted to get that done last week or early this week but when president trump brought in the big group to the white house and sort of scrambled the jets andar as what was possible wanted a much more comprehensive of changed the dynamic host up you cannot just pull a comprehensive bill out in a couple of days. if there is going to be a gun debate, it will probably be way down the line, potentially after

the next recess. the packagescribed that was planned possibly to be voted on last week and then going to the house. is this something that starts in the senate and then goes to the house? guest: the house has already passed some gun legislation, something called fix nix which tries to repair the leaky background check system that has allowed lots of people to not be on the list to not buy a gun. not every state is putting in all the names and not every federal agency has been putting in all the names. they also attacked it onto a nationwide concealed carry reciprocity which is a priority of the common rights groups but the second priority is dead in the senate. the democrats won't allow it and president trump last week said it's not going anywhere. it's up to the senate now to decide what they will send to the house. host: your story from last week in the national journal, the politics of gun control is

changing, how so? guest: do you look at the public opinion polls in the wake of the parkland shooting, there has been a spike in support for at least broad-based gun regulations. support showed that support for more gun regulations is higher than since the end of 1993. that was the last time we had major gun legislation passed. there is more political momentum than there has been in quite some time. the big question is the politics of the senate where you have read state democrats who are up for reelection in 2018 from the states most resistant to gun control measures. you also have republicans looking at primaries in this election season. the base is going to be very much opposed to republicans backing anymore regulations? alliances are the new you have seen as part of the scrambling of the politics? guest: it's really the suburban

shift and you can see that with marco rubio coming out in the cnn town hall. was one of the first republicans needing to win over voters. it's the republicans in the house that represent suburban districts come republicans in the senate that represent big metropolitan friendly states. i am watching republicans might shift on guns in the next few months. marco rubio already has. a state withenting a big suburban population is the one to watch. the president's meeting that scrambled what was going on last week, when do you expect to see something in the senate on gun control? guest: i think senators in both parties want the white house to actually put pen to paper and say in writing what the president will support. the last been juggling couple of days as to what the president would support. in the meeting, he seemed to

support universal background checks and things like a ban on bump stocks and other significant measures. in the days afterward, they have walked back some of that support. he supports bans on bump stocks but with regulations. he wants stronger background checks but what does that mean? unless he comes at a gives those republicans, it's hard to imagine that anything more than a tiny tweak to the existing system will get through. host: the issue of guns is not on the senate floor this week so what will take place in the senate this week? guest: banking deregulation. be one of the biggest deregulation bills since the dodd frank legislation after the financial crisis. ,t's aimed at smaller banks community banks, to give them less regulation so they can make it easier to make loans. there will be a lot of resistance from people like

, liberal warren democrats concerned that this will potentially set the stage for another financial crisis if you make riskier loans. you will have banks with less reporting requirements. you could end up with, in their eyes, another problem down the road. aings look great if you are banker and you have a big pot of money and it's sitting there in reserves to protect against a downturn, that's not making you any money. you want to loan it out. they are trying to make it easier to loan it out but in a downturn, that's the real question. you need those reserves. they are changing up the reserve requirement and things like municipal bonds. will that be counted as a reserve? what if you cannot sell it in a crisis because nobody wants to buy the bonds in a crisis or some municipality goes belly up question mark these are the nitty-gritty details that could have big implications years down the road. right now, it could mean more profits and maybe faster growth

in the short run for these financial institutions. ont: that takes place capitol hill and one of your favorite times of your begins this week, officially primary season starting in texas this week. what we you be looking for? lookingemocrats will be at the nominees and there are some vulnerable house republicans. this will set the stage for the big matchups in november. i'm watching the race in houston, john culverts and represent the western suburbs of the city. bid butough reelection the democrats have a challenger of their own. they have a progressive candidate by the name of laura mosier who is a strong contender to be a nomine. the congressional campaign committee has looked at her past writings and says she's unelectable. it's a republican friendly district. they are hoping a more pragmatic

voice comes out of that field and that's what republicans are facing across the country and it takes place first in texas. you have such a large field of primaries, candidates that have not been vetted and democratic operatives might be worried that some of their candidates are a little too outside the mainstream. host: illinois as a primary in the next two weeks but in between that come the special southwestn pennsylvania. the president is getting involved himself later this week. right, the special election is in a couple of weeks in western pennsylvania. the polls show that ray's neck and neck with both sides spending over $9 million. it's a seat that president trump one by 20 points and joe biden is going into the race to campaign. president trump will be there saturday. it has huge stakes.

it's a very ominous sign for the party. host: a lot to talk about in this week i had in washington. we have an hour to do it. steve dennis is with us from bloomberg and josh krashauer. here are the numbers. we will start with brad in international falls, minnesota, republican. caller: good morning. guests both of your today talking about gun control. there has never been a law that has ever stopped killing. moreink we'll just have laws and that should fix everything. the real problem is that we have a behavioral problem. whenannot fix the behavior you have the media and these two gents trying to dump on trump. host: i'm not sure that's what

our panel was trying to do. we are talking about what's actually happening on capitol hill and the white house. president trump in that meeting last week talked about mental health and wants to be strong on the mental health side of this. what avenues are there legislatively that could concern mental health? guest: i think mental health is one area where you could potentially see a bipartisan coalition come together. there are things like funding and getting mental health records into the background check system. these have been fairly bipartisan issues in the past. they are not the kind of things that cause people who are really concerned about the second amendment to say no. mental health could be an area where you could see some bipartisan support. thing thatd, the one could happen in the next few weeks, they will pass a big omnibus spending package.

that could attract all kinds of legislative hitchhikers. host: why do we have to pass that? guest: 18 days away from the next government shutdown deadline, we have had many in the past year because congress cannot get their work done. host: there was a two-year budget agreement. guest: they have the outline of what they passed and what they will do. they will spend more money on all kinds of things, defense, domestic, everyone will get more sugar to spend in the next few weeks. that bill will have so much bipartisan support that you could potentially add certain things to it, maybe mental health grants, maybe a few tweaks and all kinds of other things. landminestill some out there, the immigration issue is still out there, the daca kids who came here illegally with their parents, they have not been taking care of and today was supposed to be the deadline for congress to act but kicked that ae

few months down the road so it's not clear what will happen. host: what about the mental health side in th and the potential for agreement? caller: guest: the opposition always finds roadblocks. it's a concern among you don't wantat everyone's mental history to be in a government controlled database. that's been a roadblock to get these provisions in legislation. you have a very vocal minority that says it's hard to find some kind of compromise in which you can get bipartisan support. host: jerry, in new jersey, a democrat, good morning. are you with us? ron is in madison, ohio, independent, go ahead. caller: good morning.

what i have seen happening is totally unbelievable. gun control, how many more laws do we need with gun control? how about let's take these politicians and go to the next penalty. how many people do we have in prisons across the land who are killers but yet they live for 20 and 30 years and nobody says anything about this. schools is about the most stupid thing i have ever heard. i thank you gentlemen. host: how many more laws do we need on gun control? guest: that's generally been the operating procedure in congress because of the gun rights base. the nra has been influential and you have folks who have long opposed gun regulation who are much more active than their counterparts. in the wake of parkland, we have

seen the intensity of the gun control base has almost been as high as the opposition to the people who side with the nra. , thee intensity gathers gap of enthusiasm of energy has narrowed. also that we are seeing democratic energy throughout the country in special elections, that also is helping the gun control advocates with some political momentum. i will showdennis, your story from last week. congress hits same hurdles on guns as it did on immigration. guest: yeah, we have seen a where a congressional compromise seems to be coming together, the president want something bigger, and then they can't seem to get something done. maybe big compromises are down the road and the president will be able to bring people together on some bigger packages. there is a changing

activism, there will be in a norm is people potentially here marching on march 24. a series ofn shootings, it's not just parkland, tulsa las vegas, sutherland springs, texas. a texas senator, john cornyn is the one taking the x bill ande fix ni background checks and he does not see anything in it for bump stocks which can turn semi-automatic rifle so they can shoot as fast as a machine gun. these are smallbore issues. in potentially in some of these cases, they could result in fewer people getting shot. that does seem to be some real man -- real momentum for smaller issues. it wasn't just 1993, after the

virginia tech shooting, a conservative democrat worked with the nra and they did tweaks to the background check system for mental health. now people are saying they did not go far enough. some of then do smallbore things that don't take anyone's guns away but make it harder to get them in the first place if you had a mental health issue or if you been convicted of a crime. host: franklin, pennsylvania, james, democrat, good morning. caller: i think our government sets a bad example flooding the world with weapons. we have a thousand military bases all over the world. want to pay to taxes for this empire so i wonder how are we going to support this and do everything else? guest: that's a good budget question. one of the things that has happened in the last several months is deficits are going to explode, potentially doubling to

$1.2 trillion and there some fiscal watchdogs say the deficit could be headed toward $2 trillion every year in the next 10 years because we have the baby boom generation retiring and a decision by the congress to cut taxes by quite a bit and we now have a bipartisan spending increase bill, all of that on the credit card. there is no new tax to pay for these things, no spending cuts to pay for these things, so you will potentially end up with an $800 billion deficit or so this year and over $1 trillion likely next year. you are starting to see interest rates go up. the law of supply and demand, if you put in more supply of bonds come investors want to ask for a better return. is going up, the demand is going down because the federal reserve is no longer buying those bonds.

interest rates have been going up on mortgages, going up on the two-year treasury notes. at some point, that starts affecting the deficit as well. if you have to roll over all that debt and investors want higher interest rates, the deficit could keep going higher and higher until somebody in congress -- congress has to be the want to say we will either spend less money or tax people. host: you mentioned supply and a man. let's talk about imports and exports. that was the subject of our first hour. the president plans to impose those tariffs on steel and aluminum sometime later this week. let's talk through the politics of that what that means for the folks in capitol hill. guest: there is a lot of reporting that the trump decision on the timing of this decision was designed to help the republicans in the western pennsylvania district where there are a number of in the heart of old

western pennsylvania. a lot of union members are also in that district. they think that gives the momentum.s some i think there will be a lot of resistance from the president's own party on capitol hill. you of artie heard several senators -- you have already heard several senators not being a fan of the protectionist rhetoric and policy coming out of the white house. maybe a backlash as other industries get carrots thrown on them in the other direction. forward, how much support does he have within his own party in terms of shifting more protections? isn't anyre really support for the president's trade protectionism in the senate. this is probably the biggest fight behind the scenes, mostly behind the scenes the last x

months, between senate republicans and the president as they send letter after letter and they sell -- and they say don't councilman after, don't impose these tariffs. the president has been strong on this issue since the 1990's when he first started talking about may running for president. you look at some of his speeches, some of them are on c-span actually, he talks about trade deals and how the united states gives getting taken advantage of. republicanst of like the idea of negotiating tougher or better but they worry that this is a blunderbuss approach when you should be using a scalpel. people like rob portman who was a trade representative for george bush wanted more targeted steel tariffs for particular kinds of steel. thatlso have this issue

the biggest country that we import steal from his canada, a huge ally, only 2% come from china. there is support for congress to crackdown on china but this does not really do it. there will be pushed back but the president does not face the prospect of both houses passing a bill and overriding av to -- a veto. he has free reign here. a billhey could write specifically saying he cannot impose these tariffs? guest: yes, congress is in charge. they have deferred to the president and given him a lot of authority on trade and other issues. at any moment in time, who both parties linked hands and tried to roll them back, they could do that. some democrats are cheering this. they say it's about time we started to get tough on trade and they are applauding this. yesterday.ansion

charles in millville, new jersey, line for independence, go ahead. talking about the gun control thing but if you are talking about the trade thing, i will give you my opinion. host: talk about whatever you want. the gun control, it's hard to get a gun in this state to begin within new jersey. even though it's harder to get a gun, we still have the same amount of crime as states where it's easier to get a gun. would like your outlook on that situation why the laws we have now are not working. in new jersey, this is where there is competitive congressional elections as well. for gun support

control. suburban areas have been more supportive for gun regulation. when you go back to the clinton in the assault weapons ban vote, a lot of republicans from suburban areas voted with the white house. president clinton's party lost a lot of rural democrats. it's as much a regional issue as a partisan one. as we see with red state raises for the senate in 2018, you see democrats are willing to side inh president trump in of -- proposing gun control and suburban members are feeling more pressure. this caller may be the exception to the role but i would imagine many republicans are running for reelection and are facing these issues. the supporters are more national gun control are saying illinois,turban and

-- like dick durbin in illinois, he says the guns don't come from illinois. they can drive two states away were gun laws are easier and go to a gun show or online. they can get guns at any number of other places and say we need to do with other countries have done where it's harder to get that gun. getactually have to maybe real control, is not just an instant background check. there is all kinds of rules that happen in states like illinois or maryland or connecticut that are imposing things like assault weapons bans and limits on capacity for the magazines. if you can just go online and buy it or go to virginia and buy a gun's not really control system for the whole country. there are many loopholes. that is a tough issue. murphy ofthe center

connecticut makes is where the only country that has this level of gun violence and a lower level of standard living. there are restrictions for buying guns and other countries where you can still get one but there are hoops to jump through. guest: the political challenge and passing wide range gun legislation is the one area where there is widespread resistance of the difference between the united states and other countries. australia banned guns no late 1960's. there is the constitutional restriction but you also have, even now, widespread resistance to these bands of a lot of weaponry. host: chris murphy was at that meeting last week with the present and lawmakers. on gun control. he was also on abc's "this week"

talking about that meeting with the president. [video clip] thehe president has potential to move mountains here. the gun lobby has had a veto that over the legislation 97% of americans support universal background checks and of the president wants to do this, he just needs to get 10 or 10 orocratic resent it -- 15 democratic senators to the table. he knows the mood of the country has shifted such that he and his party will pay a huge price in the polls in 2018 and 2020 if they don't start supporting things like universal background checks. at the same time, the nra was one of his earliest supporters once he was moving toward the nomination. consolidate the republican establishment in 2018 and is trying to keep them happy as well. his instincts in that meeting are not wrong. if he and republicans don't start showing some movement in parkland, there'll not be as many republicans

around for him in 2019 and his entire agenda and perhaps for his political salvation. host: in that meeting with the president, one of the bills that the up was referred to with n-twomeyhe manchi legislation. backgroundniversal checks that don't take guns away from people. if you buy a gun at a gun show or online, you have to get a background check first. intended to close what they call the gun show loophole. guns at gun shows, many of them are sold with that ground checks. you can go one desk down to a non-federally licensed dealer who selling a gun. this is not a gun ban legislation, it's universal

background checks. some people don't like that. they want to be able to sell their weapons and have a private sale that having any interference from the government or dealing with and asked her hurdle. it had 54 votes in 2013 after newtown but 54 is not 60. the difference between 54 and 60 is pretty big. presidentequire the to not just talk about it at ist meeting last week but murphy said, to get the republicans to feel comfortable that he will give them the cover in their primaries. party's sale to the base that this will not take the guns away. joe manchin has made the point like in that meeting that because it is president trump and not president obama, the where people have not read every detail, it will not impact

some people in a draconian way. a roundtable is coming up in our "washington journal." nick in burton west virginia, republican, go ahead. onler: i would like to speak the issue of gun control. a son to gun violence, self-inflicted 15 years ago. in the immediate months after that, i would not have been a person to ask about gun control. i think a lot of stuff is going on now on the backs of the notions. -- of emotions. i think the state of florida failed the children and it's a terrible thing but i think it's the state of florida that failed them. i don't think it was a federal issue that failed them. i don't believe in taking away the second amendment right. host: what should florida have

done? caller: this guy was in the system and was overlooked. that's what happened. brings up somehe good points about how quickly this issue has become politicized in the wake of the parkland school shooting. usually, you have a week or more to take a timeout from politics and then you have the political debate. parkland, it was 24-48 hours when people were pointing fingers of the nra and law enforcement. is a news cycle it moves so fast and there is polarization that is as tense as it's ever been. is there something different about the staying power of the issue after parkland specifically? guest: the power of the students of captured the imagination a lot of voters across the country.

there is the intensity of the gun-control activists. he time students are involved, it will have that impact. caller: host: lancaster, ohio, independent. ♪ caller: thank you for taking my call. i know nothing about guns. i know nothing about drink but what i do know is something about mental illness. you keep calling it mental illness. calle behavior of what i since trump was torn into office. that women march and black lives matter. having schoolchildren angry over the nra. these are all hate speeches.

it's a behavior of the democrats who have come out to resist trump and get them out of office. i don't know what to say about that. to me, it feels like the flip side of the marches against president obama. when somebody wants to make , this is a big, diverse country and people come out and resist those changes. host: we are talking about the tea party movement? throughes, you can see those windows, there were thousands of people protesting president obama and the health 2009 and 2010. that's the democratic process. certainly, there will potentially -- we have already seen a lot of marches across the

isntry, democratic activism probably the highest i have seen during theor 2008 iraq war in particular. it seems to get democratic votes and activism up. you are seeing democracy of work, how people can disagree on the actual speech and how people are going to for being personal or going outside the bounds of proper discourse but people are concerned in this country right now. people are worried about what they are seeing at the white house. and there is a lot of angst out there that is translating into politics. we will see potentially in the next few weeks. --actually try and -- trent let's see if it translates into votes. that will be an issue in september. >> the parallel of the tea party

movement is that you are seeing this tremendous activism and energy from the base. back then it was the republican party and now it's the democrats but there is also a concern that that energy may be channeled into polarizing issues. these issues are hard to reach a copper my. activists want to impeach trump but a majority of the president will not like the president. that youa real worry cannot control the grassroots. they will do what they will do and the establishment realized in 2009 that once you lose control, things going on predictable directions. host: toledo, ohio, democrat,

good morning. caller: thank you for listening to me. i'm going to be 68 in a few days. i just have these opinions about what you are talking about. first of all, i don't think it's a matter of great change that we have a problem with. president johnson made great changes to the good and it was called the great generation, i believe. it was a great generation. men could go to work and women could stay home to raise the children. and's,asn't any if's, and bots unless the mother and father both had to go to work. that did not happen in my family, thank and i'm glad. poliohough my mother had when i was 1.5 years old.

i respected her and i thought she was a little deranged but who doesn't think their parents are a little deranged? up to today.s what is your question? checks,on background universal bank round checks period. the only one that does not benefit from it are people who are felons, unfortunately, and they have to wait number of years to get to buy a pistol or anything again. i think they are the only ones who are hurt by that. selling gunsng and in general, it's not a problem. problem if you are talking about unregulated sales. or unauthorized sales of guns. that's what i am thinking. are those issues being

addressed? guest: yes, if you support universal background checks, that bill is trying to get there. there are still some exceptions in that bill like family transfers and things like that. we have not seen a large number even a handful, come out and say they will support that bill. meeting on cnn, marco rubio went back to the capital and still opposes it. john cornyn did not sound excited about it. know, even though we have seen the polls as high as 97% support for universal background checks, the reality the nra came out strongly against that billiards ago and you don't know viewed and get a

certain kind of racing. a lot of senate democrats my not necessarily want to have a huge number of gun votes as well, likes like jon tester he anchin but he is not in love with the idea of the 21 year age limit the present trump been talking about. this is uncomfortable territory for a lot of his moderate democrats who won in states where trump did well. also rural states where people have guns and it's a gun culture does not same as new jersey. a lot of the proposals discussed by republicans go beyond the closing of loopholes for background checks. it three and the limited by certain kind of guns and what their approval of rick scott is.

you can prohibit people from buying weapons of they have a history of domestic violence. they have long-term appeal down the road. have one of the issues we not talked about is the russia investigation. the white house and congressional response was on the president's mind at least 18 minutes ago. he tweeted -- who do you think donald trump is targeting that message to? is it members of congress to look into that? guest: yeah, sure, he has tweeted that before for them to

take control of the investigations. he clearly doesn't want these investigations on capitol hill that are investigating potential russian collusion. he wants investigations into the fbi and how they handled the clinton case and he wants more investigations into the obama era justice department. there have been talks on capitol hill of wanting another special counsel to look at that. certainly, trump's allies and pushing that but ultimately, the biggest game in town right now is the robert mueller special isnsel investigation which indicting people left and right it seems these days and getting plea agreements including recently the president's one-time deputy can't -- campaign manager rick gates and paul manafort, his former campaign representative is on the hot seat. if you are the president,

politically, it's crediting any maketigation and it would sense politically. i think there are a lot of republicans on capitol hill like chuck grassley witches wishes he was stopped talking about th it. they would rather talk about the economy and all sorts of other things and many other senators wishes donald trump would put his tweeter away and lock that phone and of all for a few years and maybe you would get more popular. i don't think he will do that. is something of a bipartisan consensus that russia, politically speaking right now, is not as big an issue for voters as it is in washington. democrats have been urging their candidates running for congress not to talk about russia and not to talk about impeachment but to focus on better brother -- on bread-and-butter political

situations. i would imagine some members of the democratic primary races don't want to look at that. guest: the candidates want to talk about energizing their activists. that includes donald trump and his allegedly meddling in the election. these people will show up for the polls and will be going to rallies. the 10% of the electorate that is winnable in these close elections don't have russia at the top of the list of many to anduade the red voters that's were democratic activists are at law -- are at odds with republican strategists. guest: robert mueller is the x

factor. he can put people in jail including those close to the president, potentially indict them. this is the whole ball of wax. there has been a lot of discussion whether he will fire robert mueller or try to fire jeff sessions or push them out so somebody else can fire robert mueller or limit what robert mueller can do. not complied has with what the president wants on this and the president keeps attacking his attorney general in unprecedented ways. biggest x factor in the next few months is who does robert mueller indict? will it get closer to the president or close to his family ? if it gets close enough, what does the president do about this. the process play out and that could impact politics and away we don't see now. vanessa has been waiting

from north carolina, republican, go ahead. i am fromod morning, texas and at 15, i went into a restaurant across from our house and someone came in and rubbed it and put a gun to my stomach and robbed the place and asked me not to move. after that event, i was shocked but it never drove me to get a gun. moved to north carolina five years ago my neighbor's mother came over welcomed me and immediately proceeded to ask me if i had a gun and i said no, do i need one? she says i have a handgun next to mike bed and i should to kill. i said i'm going over the commandments where they say you should not murder or kill. do you think we are getting back to the place again where we will have a civil war in our own country where it will be people who don't want guns versus

desert versus people who do? i missing something about the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms to form a your owngainst government, not to murder somebody or protect your house or any of that. that's a normal living in a society where you have have's and have-nots. are we going to have a civil war between each other on guns? certainlyre is something of a cultural cold civil war where there is a whoive divide between folks support gun ownership and believe it's a way of life and those who believe they would never own a gun in their life. they cannot understand why there are restrictions and other regulations. getting a roadblocks time of cap mise for congress is no trust between each side. of the small-scale

background checks, raising the weapons,ps in terms of even if it has widespread support, a lot of opponents of gun regulations say it's a slippery slope. obama, that was the public resistance to gun control. they keep saying in the rhetoric that they want to take away your guns. that's the legislative gap on policy. guest: president obama did not propose any legislation that took the gun away from somebody and yet that was the rhetoric. i don't see we are heading toward a civil war. is no legislative proposals that would take a gun away from somebody. there is an assault weapons ban.

you can keep what if you already have it. a proposal to limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets for example. many of these mass shootings, people of magazines with 30 bullets or more. does not take away magazines from people who already have them. any democratic wave toward something that would lead to gun confiscation were you would have real police taking away weapon. schumer listen to chuck who wants to protect the red state democrats, he keeps talking about background checks. every wants in a while, you can ask him a question but his focus on background checks. the gun control's more of a 70/30 issue.

in red states it's upside down. it's close to 60 votes for the future issue like background checks. maybe there will be restrictions on something you can buy but nothing like you will take a gun away from you. host: fort myers, florida, independent, go ahead. caller: interesting conversation, everybody is dropping their age. i'm near 75 so bear with me. i made a couple of observations. everything is supply and no one seems to mention the entertainment industry. everything is violence. and sex. everyone is angry. ptsdone is talking about while those poor children in florida will have ptsd. they are a little disassociated and gnome and reacting to the horror think things they saw.

as they get older, they will never forget this experience. i do speak from experience with this. i would also like to see the religious community, both sides, where are they, the word pieces not it needed in the frenetic killer anymore. it's said because there is rudeness. we need compassion toward each other. if you want to get on an even playing field and its crummy that politicians on both sides are doing this dumb thing going back-and-forth, if we want an even playing field come i would suggest let's get rid of the secret service, put them into the fbi or cia and let every government individual, including the white house, arm yourselves the give it an evening playing

field. host: what do you want to pick up on? guest: if there is any significant action on guns, democrats would need to take at least one seat back in the elections. if the democrats take act the then and have a majority, they could pass gun legislation. republicans could join with the majority of democrats and get something more significant. the president is the big wildcard. he does not want to alienate his allies. if the democrats of more power in washington, you never know where he will go. you've got marsalis in clayton, north carolina, line for democrats. caller: i would like to say a little bit on the guns.

house ise and the owned by the nra especially on the gop side. these people get elected and they get in their and let the nra tell them what to do. my thing about the guns is they should take that automatic rifle, an assault rifle, stop selling it to people. another thing that would deteriorate made people is when you own a gun, you have to register that gun every year and you should pay in ownership tax just like your house or your car . you buy that car and you pay the sales tax but every year, you have to pay a tax on a car. and you have to register it, same thing with the guns. gun, make them pay a tax on it every year and register that gun every year.

start with the nra influence. the nra is very powerful. host: as powerful today is the past? guest: i cannot think of a bill that has passed in decades the 1993 --posed -- 1994 bill, there were some significant legislation them. trying tohe last bill restrict access to guns and i believe the nra supported it. actually doesnt propose something that the nra opposes and a becomes law, it would be a huge breakthrough. there has been basically no successful effort. president obama did try year after year. he gave a lot of speeches and have members of congress up to the white house and the nra

opposed it and it did not get anywhere. the nra is affecting his large membership. in 2015, it had net does it throughout the country. they were as popular as president obama. it has slipped a little in the wake of parkland. has a good brand and much of the country. when the democratic party or the liberals call for boycotting the don't think they appreciate how much supported does have in other parts of the country. we know anything about their membership numbers? do they just keep going up? guest: gun sales of going up under obama and there was a debate. there was a major spike with

people buying guns. host: now we have the trump slump? guest: we are seeing bankruptcies now in the gun because the huge spike in purchases as people were a that they would not be able to buy guns. they have 5 million members. members, theythe can be effective in races. people can be of very effective. i'm always shocked how little money there is in politics, $10 million or $1 million, we are in a $20 trillion economy. people can easily dump billions of dollars in this. lots: some lobbyists spend of money on campaigns. the nra spends outside money on

campaigns but it's the intensity of their membership and that's not going away. host: montana, republican go ahead. i just cannot let something that happened earlier go by the wayside. there was a lady that called about how much hate is on display here lately. your guests seem to want to compare the protests we are seeing today against trump. and i feel like against me. to the protest we saw during the obama years such as the tea party movement. i cannot believe that they are comparing those two things as being equal. host: why do you think it's an unfair comparison? caller: it seems like there is -- i don't know whether i would call it file or

just hateful actions. vile or just hateful actions. looking for a better word -- peaceful demonstration of the tea party? guest: you have about -- host: you have about a minute and a half. guest: i take your criticism, i certainly saw a lot of ugly things against president obama, -- a lote some people of fines that were very vile, it is true that the larger tea party movement was a real political movement, it had principles behind it, i think a

lot of opposition to president trump is just normal democratic crosses, it is a big country, some people take their freedoms and use it in ways that are vile. i don't think that is necessarily a left-wing or a right-wing thing. guest: the bigger point is that there is a lot of energy. elements of both parties -- i covered a lot of tea party people with a lot of civic involvement in their the rights, both on and left. i think the big political point is that there is this energy that will start the channel. democrats are showing up at the polls under president trump, but the risk is that they could end up taking the points that are a little bit out of the mainstream. dennis is a bloomberg, we

always appreciate your time. come back again. up next is our weekly at your money segment on the washington journal where we discuss the implementation of the new tax law with marty sullivan. we'll be right back. ♪ announcer: tonight, on c-span landmark cases. we'll explore the civil rights , the supreme court's decision that struck down the

civil rights act of 18 75, the federal law that granted all people access to public accommodations. harlan john marshall castellon vote in opposition and his dissent eventually eclipsed the legacy of the majority opinion, explore this case of the high court ruling with danielle holly walker, dean of howard university law school. watch landmark cases live or listen with the free c-span radio app. for background, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. c-span.org/ble at landmarkcases. website toly on our the national constitution center's is -- international constitution.

in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. announcer: washington journal continues. on this segment of washington journal, we take a look at how your money is at work. we will talk about the new tax law and the implementation of that law, the tax cuts and jobs act. to help us out this morning we are joined by mike sullivan, a chief economist. it has been 10 weeks since that law was signed into law, how far

along are we in the implementation process at this point? most of the provisions have gone into effect as of january 1, but we do not fill nextur tax returns until april. most of the public has not felt the effects of this yet, except maybe on their withholding which probably should have gone down which will increase their pay. in the business world, it is another entirely different story, they are totally struggling to understand all the implications of this bill, they have financial reporting concerns and tax planning areerns, the business folks total chaos right now. host: on the individual side for a second. and people go to file their taxes this year, is there anything specifically that they will be looking for that will be different because of the new tax law?

the good news is that the standard deduction has doubled, under current law for at least this year for the last time, about 44 million americans itemized and that number will go down to maybe 10-15,000,000 people. that is great news that will be going away. the other big difference is that this is the bad news -- personal exemption goes away. on the other hand, child credit expands, which is a good thing. rates will go down, that is a good thing. the big difference for those who still itemized is that the state and local tax deduction will be limited to $10,000 so if you live in a high tax state like maryland or new york or

-- your taxes won't go up, you just won't have the same -- your taxes will go up, but you will lose that benefit. on the business side, chaos is the term you use. why is that happening? was that not planned for? host: if it takes a year to a good tax bill takes longer than that to put together. they did this in 50 days. imagine you built a new house in 50 days. thatmount of touchup work has to be done is enormous because of the speed with which congress put it through. there wasn't really a lot of public input which we call betting, where experts come in and say it you forgot this. there are so many loose ends

were wires hanging out of the walls, it is a little dangerous. the biggest problem right now is what folks are calling the green glitch -- if you are a farmer you know about this already. there was a tax benefit provided for producers like manufacturers and farmers because they produce as well. it was a modest benefit, 9% of your income was shaved from your taxable income. they wanted to get rid of all of those special loopholes, the they got rid of that and lower the corporate rate. when they got rid of that, they forgot they had been provided special benefit for farmers. they did not put that benefit in the house bill, they didn't put it in the senate bill, and at the very last moment in the third stage of the process, in

bill, senators from south dakota -- north dakota and south got a special benefit in for the farmers equal to 20% of their sales. remember the bill was signed on december 22, it was a merry christmas for everybody and the reason why that is important is that most people were getting 20% of their net income, so if my farmer income was 50,000, they had expenses of 40, they would get a tax benefit on that under the way this bill was written, you get the tax benefit on the 50. problem,'t even the the problem was that of the only were who got that benefit those who sell to cooperatives.

if you sold to a private business, you did not give the benefit. now there is tremendous problem because all of these resellers,d grain nobody wants to sell to them because they wont get the benefit. there is a tremendous effort on capitol hill to get this toothpaste back in the tube. if they do want to fix it, how does that work? guest: at first, they thought they were going to have a spending bill a few weeks ago where they spent 300 billion dollars, they thought for sure they would get it in there and it did not happen. now they are talking about another bill on march 23 where they are promising to put it in, very difficult politically and technically to make these types of changes.

and taxief economist analyst. the implementation of the new tax law in this segment about the washington journal, our weekly your money segment. if you want to join in, for democrats (202) 748-8000 (202) 748-8001 for independents (202) 748-8002. normal, what not are some of the other glitches? guest: not so much glitches as absolute uncertainty about what should be done. whenever you have a major new tax legislation, treasury has to come in and congress makes the law -- treasury has to come in with the brooms and the hammers and make it work, fine tune it. this time of because they have gone so quickly, they made changes in this bill bigger than

we have ever had before. the treasury is unsure as to what congressional intent was, the treasury is unsure how to what i work properly, meant to say in that article is that after you buy a new house there will always be lower repairs and things, but if you fix of the house in seven weeks, there is going to be a lot of things you will need to fix. the other aspect that makes the is that theazy assistant secretary of treasury is also irs commissioner on a temporary basis. what would be to incredibly difficult jobs under any -- also last friday the deputy assistant

secretary who is doing most of the work has also left his post. so we are understaffed and overworked with the private sector clamoring for regulation. host: you can check out some of marty sullivan's writing at tax analyst.com. what do you do? nonprofit since 1973, we are devoted to to turning outnd as much of the fair debate as possible. we existed well before the internet, so what we try to do is get as much information as possible. @ta: on a twitter it is xanalyst. host: independent, go ahead.

you know, there is a problem with the tax law in general because they switched of the government from the republic to a democracy after the cold war, and the taxes are not proportioned. if you read the book cracking the code with pete hendrickson who railroaded into jail and railroaded his wife into jail, he explains it pretty simply and he got a lot of money back for people who got -- people who were paying taxes and they were owed taxes. don't understand what they are implementing, what they should implement is of the law of the fairlic so that we can get legal tax. host: martin sullivan. taxes are lawful.

there has been a lot of different about theories, some calling them conspiracy very's about whether income tax is lawful. this has pretty much been gone over very carefully by the irs and by the constitutional attorneys that these taxes are lawful. host: michigan, alex, independent. yeah, martin, look. a good friend of mine works for a large auto dealership here in and a lot of them had to leave their job because they could not afford to keep -- they were asked to take a 35% pay cut. you have these guys trump is everybody with the large companies, i just

wondered what is going to be talked about when they are bragging about all the money being distributed because of the tax cut. you are saying that these pay cuts came -- the limitation of the tax law? from thehey got a memo that they were going to get a 35% pay cut and the memo came down. that is a big tax cut supposedly for a large and don't trickle down to the little guy. a lot of those guys have mortgages, they had to go out in start trying to find other employment. host: can you talk a bit about

these? guest: the signature provision of the tax law is the reduction of the corporate tax rate for 35% to 21%. because there is that this and other provisions to the law increase incentives in the united states that contrary to what the caller is saying, it would actually increase employment. one thing i can mention that is factual is that for the 100 city million taxpayers that make less , the average direct benefit on your tax return will be about $800. that is the average. taxpayers making over 200,000 dollars, the average benefit will be about $18,000. we have these direct benefits, if you will, and then the caller

is talking more about what will the economic effects be in the long run and how will it affect employment? contrary to what is happening in the example he brings out, what we are hoping for is that there will be an increase in investment, an increase in job creation. law: the impact of the tax and the story on the glitches in the new tax law, i know you tweeted quite a bit specifically about the impact this law has had in puerto rico, can you talk through that a little bit? has been partrico of the united states since 1903 and puerto ricans have been american citizens since 1917. purposes,or tax puerto rico is treated as a foreign country. in this bill, the good news is what congress has done, it has leveled the playing field so that it's not as advantageous to be a foreign factory overseas as

it used to be. they havee good news, raised taxes on foreign factories, lower taxes on domestic factories, so that is good. for the 50 states. however, everybody always unfortunately, especially in a deal that was rust, puerto rico was an afterthought. foreign are hurting investment, you are actually hurting puerto rico. the stateside investment. of course, they have had hurricanes, they have been technically in bankruptcy, they have always had a low standard of living. so you put all of those factors together now and maybe we should have had a little more attention paid to puerto rico. host: marty sullivan with us for about 10 more minutes in this segment of washington journal.

if you want to check out their website it is taxanalyst.org. gary in illinois, republican. since wto, building products and sending them back to us. i bought a can opener for one dollar and brought it home, the first time i used it it broke. china getting all this stuff built, bringing it back, it is total junk. some of the stuff works, some of the stuff don't. the stuff we are working with today is the lowest it has ever been in my lifetime. i am 67 years old. we would have been better off if we would have cap american manufacturers and business. we had a high-quality product

coming out we could depend on. you go to buy, you don't know if it is going to work and the price is way out of line for the quality. host: gary, bringing that up on -- day that the president sometime this week the president intends to impose new terrorists on foreign steel and aluminum. terrorists -- new tarrifs. the decline of u.s. manufacturing has been dramatic in the last 30 years. primarily related to globalization. the tax benefits were better off shore. all of these factors contributed to the outflow of investment from the united states to

foreign jurisdiction. i grew up in a factory town and now there is absolutely no manufacturing at all. host: what was the factory? jersey, grew up in new the colgate factory was there. there were literally dozens of small manufacturers in my neighborhood. host: do you know what happened with them? guest: i am not sure. the big clock is still there, but the factory is no longer there. getust can't really on all of this tax analysis that you are talking about. we are always hurting the american people and our allies in europe and nothing has ever been done about china or russia and i am intending to believe that trump is so mad at the

united states because he couldn't borrow any more money to file bankruptcy that he has run over to russia and now he is doing everything he can to run the united states down. one thing i think is important to bring up about this fourill was for the last or five years as we discussed tax reform, everybody was talking about a revenue neutral bill of where we would not increase the deficit. it was not until october of last year that the senate budget committee decided that $1.5 the concernscut -- about the debt are very legitimate and when the cbo comes out with the congressional budget office with new numbers, we will be seeing a lot of trillion dollar deficits as a

result of this tax bill and as a result of the spending bill that congress passed subsequently. host: when it comes to things like the grained glitch, give us some comparisons back to the tax reform efforts of the 1980's. kinds ofe these glitches and how long did it take for them to fix things? enough tom old remember, i actually worked at the treasury department back then. i can remember some specific problems that were nearly temporarye, they were and they got through them pretty quickly. i cannot remember anything this egregious happening before. host: specifically the grained glitch? guest: yes. there are always technical corrections where congress -- the stick is so large, to

compare it to a house. it is a structural change, you need to call in the engineers, that would be congress. there are always technical modifications, the treasury can sort of do it on its own through guidance and through regulation. what is interesting about treasury regulation, unlike most other regulation, is that the business community clamors for it, please give us more regulation. regulation,s to tax business community is begging for it as much and as quickly as possible. they are just -- when you read the statute, you are not sure if you do a are you do be, all it says is please tell us which one to do. treasury is a little shortstaffed, about 1000 of those things to figure out and

are trying not to make mistakes. it is going to take a wild. -- take a wild. host: anthony in phoenix, independent. caller: can you hear me? in light of trump taxes not being revealed. in light of kushner and trump having trouble getting $503cing, in light of the billion a kushner family just got, how much of this rushed to the five-day tax bill is going to benefit the kushner and trump families while the rest of americans are being told that the benefits to them are going to be substantial, $800 for a family does not seem like much. does the top 1% benefit including the kushner and trump families? why is this allowed? guest: of course, we don't have the president's tax returns, and

that -- there is nothing illegal about that, but that has not been a normal practice for many decades. we do know that the state actually provided in the bill will probably help the trump family substantially, and we do also know that the commercial real estate business will do well under this bill. do not want to get into any specifics since we have no real idea. host: pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. us?st, are you with georgia, republican. go ahead. caller: you know what i don't understand is all the people i hear talking about corporate tax on television, corporate tax is of the cost of business. the taxes are passed to a

consumer, it is a hidden federal sales tax. everybody pays the same amount. if you are making 200 a month or 2000 a month, everybody is going to pay for whatever the hell it is. it is the worst kind of tax in america. thank you. -- economists of according myself would agree it is the worst tax that we have. there is no reason for a special a business that happens to be called a corporation. i disagree a little bit with the caller in that it is the burden split threesually ways, some of it goes to the consumer as he said, some of it does go to the workers, some of the burden is on the workers and some of the burden is on the investors themselves. is the subject of debate in the economics profession is how much each of those groups bear that burden. host: patrick is independent, go

ahead. good morning, a question about eliminating the cap on social security. , what would be the negative or positive of that relative to the budget? believe the now, i medicare tax, there is no income limit on that run out. for social security, there is a cap of 100 something thousand. when people talk about social security reform and restoring solvency through social security system, raising that cap is one of the options that comes up very often. it would raise a substantial amount of money. new jersey, democrat. go ahead. um, i was just curious, i

am a democrat and i do not support trump to the fullest to be honest. but i don't really find it morally -- i understand it might be tradition to show your tax returns. but i don't feel it is completely necessary and you can go fuck yourself. host: i apologize for that, we will move on. the upcoming spending bill that congress is putting together -- some of the glitches -- is this something that can be included in that piece of legislation? guest: especially members from the farm states really wanted to be in this bill, there is a political dynamic whatever you do these types of corrections where if i take care of yours, i am more likely to be left out of the next one.

usually, they want to bundle them together. find somet they will way to get it in a given the tremendous political pressure, 1.9 million farmers this affects. it should be done. technically, but we have not gotten any word about is what exactly they are going to fix it -- how exactly. until we hear that, until we hear the reaction of the groups affected and the cost to the government, we really can't be sure. -- martyk sullivan sullivan is the chief economist at taxanalyst.org. for the last half hour, open phones. whatever public policy issue you want to call about, start calling in now. the phone numbers are on your screen, we will be right back. ♪

>> what lessons do you draw from that court ruling, particularly about this loophole in loving the common carrier exception? side, theresitive

is one less loophole, meaning -- as it relates to whether or not there is commentarya mix of or not. there was some clarity given there. what is also clear is what is still troubling to me, that they are still not the expert agency. it is still not the agency that had any background of when it comes to a common carrier or net neutrality regulations, the fcc is still the agency that does not answer or come into play unless harm is done and unless you can prove unfair or deceptive practices. things forery high security systems to be able to realize or be able to forge to bring to the ftc. announcer: watch the communicators tonight on