for joining us today for latinos in election 2018. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed >> at 10:00 eastern on c-span, a brookings institution event on the war in yemen in its fourth year. the washington post previews the midterm elections and at 7:00 p.m. eastern, a debate between candidates and governor of south carolina. on c-span 2, the justice department host the summit where jeff sessions outlines federal ---enforcement strategies that gets underway at 9:00 a.m. and c-span 3, the center for american progress forum on internet hate speech. in about an hour on "washington journal," a look at the best and

worst campaign ads with steve mcmahon and republican strategist todd harris. and boston college law professor ray madoff on inheritance tax laws. ♪ host: good morning. we begin the washington journal by asking for your suggestions on how to cool the political instability in america. the discovery of package bombs sent to democrats and the office of cnn sent off an intense investigation from new york and washington, d.c. and florida and started a national conversation about dialing back the rising temperature of political discourse. we are turning our phone lines over to you. how can the united states make

the clinical climate less hostile? our phone lines split up regionally. it is two of 2748 8000 --202-748-8000. in mountain and pacific, 202-748-8001. you can catch up with us on social media. .n twitter it is @cspanwj on facebook, it is facebook.com/cspan. a very but -- a very good thursday morning. york, -- theew custody, butlice the parcel was "the same" as containing pipe bombs. it would be the 8th device investigators are related. those investigators -- packages arrived on monday to george

soros -- and investigators continued tuesday evening at the home of bill and hillary clinton. toackage bombs from new york florida to offices of -- cnn offices of new york to the home of barack obama. two packages sent to maxine waters and one sent to debbie wasserman schultz. that one originally addressed to eric holder. packageske of those being discovered, the investigation continues. here are the headlines in today's paper. -- bombs sentopes to targets of trump's barbs, heat up debate on political --subject of trump's ire in bomb

maker's sites. [video clip] >> i want to begin the rally by addressing the suspicious devices and packages that were mailed to current and former high-ranking government officials. my highest duty, as you know, as president, is to keep america safe. that is what we talk about. government is conducting an aggressive investigation and we will find those responsible and bring them to justice hopefully very .uickly any acts or threat of political violence are an attack on our democracy itself. no nation can succeed that tolerates violence or the threat of violence as a method of political intimidation,

coercion, or control. such conduct must be fiercely opposed and firmly prosecuted. we want all sides to come together in peace and harmony. we can do it. we can do it. host: that was the president last night in wisconsin. video --king our viewers. phone lines set up regionally. eastern or central time zones, 202-748-8000. mountain or pacific, 202-748-8001. we will show you throughout this first hour of the washington .ournal we want to hear from you starting with aubrey in macon, georgia. good morning. goodmment is --caller: morning. we have a president that insights violence.

supporters, they do not have vocabulary of their own, whatever he said, crooked hillary and last night, he was at a rally making fun of these bombs. we need to get this manchild under control. host: what did he say last night where you heard he was making fun of the bombs? caller: he said i am going to calm the rhetoric down. yelling.i would be he is making fun of what is happening to these people. he is making fun of bombs. then he encourages all of this and when it happens, he makes fun of it. and he sits back and says, look what i am doing. are some ways to make the political climate less hostile? caller: respect people, respect one another, respect ourselves.

try to help one another rather than denigrating and calling names and trying to find ways to hurt one another. let's reach down and pull somebody up instead of stomping on them when they are down. host: bob in minnesota, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my calls. i think the lady that just called was right. a lot of the fuel for the fire comes from the rallies the president goes to and when he talks about body slamming people from the press and i have heard him say this before on tv that it was hillary and barack obama isis.tarted he just kind of perpetuates this kind of thinking with people.

help if he did not talk like that. i think it will go back to the same old -- before long. right now, he is backpedaling a little bit. i do not think it is going to last. host:allen up next in virginia. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. with respect to the last two callers, everybody needs to learn to disagree agreeably and have open dialogs and one of the ways to solve this problem is to respect one another. we need to have open dialogue in all universities in the country and take groups like antifa and all these other groups and when

people cannot go into a restaurant and have a quiet dinner -- of these instigators belong in jail. that is not free speech. free speech is saying what is going on your mind -- saying what is on your mind. the democrat party is as guilty as anybody else. act civil. let's disagree agreeably and work together. if i disagree with you and everybody is upset -- it doesn't make sense at all. agore not living 2000 years , we are in modern times and we should live -- learn to respect each other and be honest and work together. we need to be on our knees and thanking god and asking him to

help us through these difficult times. no one wants to talk about that, that is not a good thing to talk about. thank you so much for doing a good job and thank you for taking my call. have a great day and all the callers have a great day as well. kevin incavern -- stafford, virginia. caller: yes, there is rhetoric on both sides. if you bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. that is barack obama. you need to get all up in that is corye, booker and we are going to hound them down and tell them they are not welcome. that is maxine. donald trump fights back like you have never seen before and take it.ocrats cannot now they will try to blame bombs on the president. please, please. you are headed down a losing

road in this election and you don't even see it coming. host: can i ask you to respond to presidentwrites trump and his column today saying "stop the mob, mr. president." nobody but the perpetrator is responsible for this attack. one man has done the most to create this climate, whipping up supporters fear and desperation with often violent rhetoric. stop the mob, he says, mr. president. host: and his name is dana milbank. i read the washington post every single day. if you watch him on cnn and msnbc, every single word that comes out of his mouth is hate, hate, hate trump. dana milbank is a major part of this problem, the washington post.

i am sure everybody is listening and they know what i am talking about. dana milbank has never written anything positive. nothing positive about a guy that beat 17 republicans and crushed the entire democrat establishment and is now sitting in the white house. he is a very accomplished guy, just a little rough around the edges. that is where it is at. sorry, dana. host: that is kevin in virginia. here is more from the president from the rally last night parade [video clip] >> there is much we can do to bring our nation together. for example, those engaged in the political arena must stop treating political opponents as being morally defective. have to do that. the language of moral condemnation and destructive routine, these are arguments and disagreements that have to stop. no one should carelessly compare

political opponents to historical villains, which is done often, it is done all the time. it has got to stop. we should not mob people in public spaces or destroy public property. [cheering] there is one way to settle our disagreements. it is called peacefully, at the ballot box. that is what we want. that is what we want. cured nationalng effort to bridge divides and bring people together, the media also has a responsibility to set a civil tone and stop the hostility and constant negative and oftentimes false attacks and stories. has to do it. have to do it. host: more reaction from across

the political divide. here is the former vice on twitter,oe biden this country has to come together. this division and hatred and ugliness has to end. mike pence condemned the attacks are- these cowardly actions despicable and have no place in this country, saying he is grateful for the swift response of secret service, fbi, and those responsible will be brought to justice. eric from california, terror will not stop democracy or deter the free press. thank you to the officials on the ground. scaliseman steve tweeting yesterday, i have experienced firsthand the effects of political violence and i am committed to using my voice to speak out against it wherever i can.

we are hearing your voice is this morning and asking you for ways to make the political climate less hostile. what are specific things we can do? give us a call on phone lines regionally. eastern and central time zones, 202-748-8000. mountain and pacific, 202-748-8001. joy in chicago, good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment on kevin, he is the fear. this thing has been going on since joan of arc. this same mentality has been going on in rwanda. need citrix, we need an --ormed public and to me, when people call on the line, i have been listening for years and i hate to say this because my family is from alabama, but

sometimes when they have a southern accent, it scares me and it has never done that before. it is all over the place now, it is ridiculous. be on the better side of history. when i see those mobs who burn people hanging from trees and things like that, it reminds me, who are the people in the crowd. you look at those people -- look at the anger. look at the fear mongering. it is unbelievable. , prayer back in schools. whatremember, in rwanda, happened when those people were killed and with joan of arc. remember those mentalities that happened where everybody is listening to rhetoric. read george orwell, "1984." i swear that is what is

happening now. host: joy into cargo. steve in south carolina, good morning. caller: wow. listen. you can chase this rabbit all over the place. gore is plenty of blame to around. -- my are sitting there candidate was darrell castle and i am being honest. you had him on c-span, thank goodness. there is so much blame to go around and republicans and democrats alike, they have to share responsibility here. it's a lot of rhetoric that is not civil and what i want you to realize is these people will not miss the opportunity to spread hate and discontentment in front of a camera. at thethe scenes, congressional country club, they are making backroom deals like

it has always been. he kinddsey graham said of hated it because those are my friends over there. they are not the same people in real life and behind the scenes as they are in front of a camera. you have got to understand that and relax. host: do you want them to be friends? should they be enemies and politics? caller: no, that gains nothing. the people can spread -- they can insight a ride it in front of the camera because they are energizing their voters and then they sit home and watch the mayhem unfold. let me leave you with this one word. definition of rhetoric. language designed to have a persuasive or impressive offense audience effect on the but lacking in sincerity or content.

it is on them, it is on the politicians to go -- you , hillary civility recently said you cannot be civil. if you tell people you are not going to be civil, they are going to get the first lick in. thank you for that time. host: steve in south carolina. you bring up the former secretary of state hillary clinton, here are some of her comments yesterday after the discovery of that package at her home. [video clip] >> it is a troubling time, isn't it? it is a time of deep divisions and we have to do everything we can to bring our country together. candidatese to elect who will try to do the same.

who will set goals that will lift up every single floridian and american, who will look into understand what are the challenges we have to meet today so our children and our grandchildren have a quality of life and the opportunities we hope for them? usually, when people ask me how am i doing, which happens quite person, i am as a great. as an american, i am worried. host: that was the former secretary of state yesterday. we are asking you for ways to make the political climate less hostile. give us a call on phone lines split up regionally or join us via social media. from facebook, it is too late to fix the damage that has been done. teach younger generations how to

responsibly consume information so they do not fall victim to propaganda and conspiracy theories. trump needs to go, he is apathetic and has no sympathetic bone in his party. -- body. one more from facebook, james writes, hits and -- hit the reset button. it money out of politics and the lobbying. tom in virginia, what do you think? caller: yes, i think everybody on here is hitting all around this with a lot of very important information. the bottom line is all of our politicians on the left and the right and the media make their byey and collect donations sensationalizing issues

basically driving fear into their base because fear is the principal motivator of why people send money to either republicans or democrats or -- and probably more importantly, there is more money even being made in the media, where these so-called news organizations like cnn and fox are not news organizations. they are entertainment channels is their audience extreme right and the extreme left. those are the people that are going to buy survival goods off fox news and -- my overall point is what the american people need to realize is they need to start seeing through not just of the rhetoric -- it is not rhetoric, it is sensationalism to drive

their fear to motivate them to either prepare for the worst or againsta specific party the opposition force. that is all this is. host: that is tom in virginia. james on facebook rights nomura attack ads. all advertisements focused on the candidates, what their goals would be if they got elected. we will be talking more about political ads in our next hour this morning, talking about the ads that have been -- gone viral. getting your thoughts on what you think are good and bad campaign ads. in this first hour, asking for your suggestions on ways to make the political climate less hostile. ray in north carolina, your next. ridiculous. is i did not know there were so many racists in this country.

this is ridiculous. i tell you the truth. this man is sick and you have all these sick people. i don't understand it. can't you see what this man is doing? he is going to destroy the united states and you are going along with it. my goodness. just like the lady who spoke so eloquently before the two gentlemans. she hit it dead on the nose. this is ridiculous. he spews out hate, hate, hate daily just like he is talking about the caravan. eastern'sand middle in the caravan. that that's a lie -- know is a lie. it like he is going to give you tax breaks, that is a lie. congress is not even in session. everything comes out of his mouth is alive. and you-- is a lie believe him. host: here is more from the

president today on twitter saying a very big part of the anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposefully false and inaccurate reporting of the mainstream media i refer to as fake news. it has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. mainstream media must clean up its act fast. we will keep looking for the president's twitter page as we show you other tweets including that of donald payne junior of new york -- new jersey. in true form he writes president victim's ofthe attempted terrorist attacks rather than taking responsibility in his role of advocating for violence and dehumanization. thankfully no one has yet been injured and he praises police and first responders to the pipe bombs. judy in west virginia, good morning. caller: good morning.

my opinion is that everybody needs to mind their own business and educate themselves as best they can, try to find. i go on the internet and i am trying to find a neutral media and the closest i got was reuters and the ap and i watch c-span. i watch debates. the only thing you can do is go vote. as a rule, don't talk about politics or religion. i am 61 years old and i have always gone by that. i have 1 vote and that is what determines. . think people are like sheep there are a lot of ignorant people that believe the media, social media has really ramped up the political scene, i believe and people don't know

the facts. i did not pay attention to history when i was in high school. i did not take any in college. i am doing it now because i want to know how we ended up where we are today. bottom line is mind your own business. thank you. host: essex, maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to point out this all started with the war on political correctness. you cannot have a war on political correctness and ask people to be civil. add -- factor i would msnbc and fox, you should not call those news. they are biased comments. there is no such thing as fake news. news is a communication of facts. foxs just that msnbc and

have ruined the term news. that is really my comment today. host: clinton, maryland, you are up next. caller: good morning, john. i would like to address your question. you asked the south carolina caller should there be enemies in politics? my response is no. if there are enemies in politics, we all lose because they are busy fighting with each other instead of doing the people's work, which should benefit as many americans as possible. the second thing i would like to say is there is a saying an eye for an eye. if -- under this current climate, if somebody exercises freedom of speech and somebody else retaliates with bombs, guns, knives, what have you, then everybody is dead. everyone is blind.

they cannot see. people today -- i truly believe people today have a problem listening, being able to not agree with somebody's opinion or isition and say, ok, that your right. i might not agree with it, but you have a right to say it. now people want blood. i cannot understand that. i am sickened with what i see from the president, the media. the media is just as involved and culpable in this. host: what are -- where do you think this started? when did we? start going with just disagreeing to political opponents to seeing them as evil? caller: i thought about that. i don't know if it goes back. i really think it goes back to with newtn era gingrich and the congress back n and tom delay and that is

when i really noticed a change. when used to be a time chip o'neill and ronald reagan and the guys back in that age simpson in alan wyoming, those guys had friends. they might not agree with the person on the other side, that those guys would eat together, would go out to dinner and eat. they would fellowship with one another. when they got in the chamber, they would disagree, but i never saw anything as volatile and vile and vicious as it is today and people today -- i don't know if they are too literal or one of the callers before said are just ignorant. they seem to glom on to these things and there is no in between. you are either with me or

against me and if you are with me, i am great. if i -- you are against me, i am going for the jugular. i did not like when the democrats would tell people to get in their faces when they were out eating. that is not good. if you want to have civil discourse, gather forces together, protest, go out and vote. on the other hand, sending bombs to people's homes? that is crazy and then for the president and these senators not just to -- i don't mean they have to. for the president and the republican senators, not just to think about it. when i was a little kid, kennedy was assassinated and you have people sending bombs to former president and folks are sitting back saying the democrats are

asking for this. what about it just being wrong? was talking about how we treat political opponents in this climate. former outgoing u.n. ambassador nikki haley discussed at the alfred e smith dinner in new york where she addressed the audience. this is what she had to say. [video clip] >> i really want to share something i believe is important. i say it a lot when i speak to high school students and college students. in our toxic political environment, i have heard some people in both parties described their opponents as enemies or evil. in america, our political opponents are not evil. issouth sudan where rape used as a weapon of war, that is evil. in syria, where the dictator uses chemical weapons to murder innocent children, that is evil.

in north korea, where auto warm beer warbier was tortured to death, that is evil. i have seen evil. we have serious political differences here at home, but our opponents are not evil. they are just our opponents. we are blessed with a political system that allows us to resolve our differences peacefully. in the end, we must recognize we are all americans and we are stronger and healthier when we are united. 7:30 on thefter east coast and we are starting our program asking you for ways to make the political climate less hostile. in the eastern or central time zones, 202-748-8000. in mountain or pacific time zones, 202-748-8001. kevin, thank you for waiting and getting up in california. go ahead. toler: johnny, always good

see you. i think we have a situation where there are two fundamental different beliefs between republicans and democrats. it would be difficult to have an evangelical be all right with abortion or someone who believes in a woman's choice be pro-life. there are certain things that are not as hard-core as the fundamental values of these two sides. that is what you attack and make progress on. democrats and republicans can meet somewhere in the middle of the number line on immigration. and thatward progress is what you do. you both make a commitment to progress and there are certain issues, fundamentally, apples and oranges. you have the freedom and right as an american to believe the way you do and there are certain things we can meet in the middle on.

democrats -- there's a lot of trash talking about the president. i would like to see some substance, some ideas for solutions. there's a lot of angry talk. things ared sensitive, but it would be nice for people to call in with solutions to problems instead of slamming republicans. host: are you optimistic it will get better? in time, no matter what, i think it will get better. i think we are going through a very delicate time in history, the baby boomer generation and people with different views and everyone is trying to mix. i do think it will get better. i think it will get much better. from roanoke, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call.

i think the country is in a tough spot. i think we have to settle in and understand we have seen worse. as a kid, my mother's generation could not vote until she was 27 years old and that was after they had to fight for the right to vote. i think we changed the climate by having term limits, instituting campaign reform. if you take the money out and the big-money donors and the corporations, i think we might get a better candidate. i think we have to read real news sources. of one is better than what i am seeing on entertainment news. we have to register and vote, but we have to understand, which i think we are failing to do. voting is our civic duty. until we understand that, i don't think we can hope for or expect anything better.

a responsibility to register and vote and i think if we start doing that, things will get better. i have a campaign for a nation, a better candidate for a better nation. host: that is your campaign slogan? caller: yes, it is. host: do you have an idea what canada that would be? caller: i don't think i have seen them. host: what are some ways to make the political climate less hostile? isler: good morning, c-span fair and balanced. i would propose we institute proportional electoral college. this would negate the de facto gerrymandering of the states and each vote would count within each state, which would increase voter turnout and increase fresh ration over the loser -- decreased frustration of the loser of a election that has more popular votes. host: good morning.

caller: thank you for c-span. on a quick note if i could complement you, you are the most dapperly dressed gentleman on this network. it is a pleasure to see your tie collection. host: what are your thoughts on the question today? caller: i think i am a bit of a pessimist and i don't think there is going back to the days where people could disagree civilly. i think we need to drop the united from the knot -- states of america and people need to move to places that are more in line to where the politicians .eel their loyalties lie the gentleman from california a couple callers ago said there are fundamental divides in this country that no matter how much we want to full ourselves -- fool ourselves into believing we can compromise, it will not happen. you will never get an evangelical to recognize the

rights of two men or two women to love each other. you are never going to get a democrat to recognize certain national security interests or the power they need. i think we just need to be conscious of where we live, who we vote for and we need to move to the areas most in line with our way of thinking. host: where does that lead us if we keep doing that? if we keep self segregating? us ar: i think it gives better localized system of politics. i think the states would be better off. seefederal government may more of a divide and it may be harder to get things done on a federal level, but on a state level, i think it would be better for everybody involved to just live where they think their state has the best interest or

not. everything else on a federal level -- the federal government probably should not have as much of a say in the things they do. that is a completely different conversation. as americans, i think we owe it to ourselves and our country to preserve what the founding fathers wanted and that was true representation. if we cannot get things done in senate or congress, what has changed in the last 15 years? they cannot get anything done anyway. host: daniel in corpus christi, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. what i would like to talk about to end so much divisiveness is there are three basic words i got exposed to in an interpersonal communications class and those were anti-intellectualism, value judgments, and the third word is triumphalism. our habit of watching sports

like football has us in a triumphalistic attitude. in value talking judgments. something is good or bad and we just want to win. that attitude is really bad for us. that is a value judgment, but it is about this. that is the anti-intellectualism right now being met with a rather dark intellectualism that goes far out of its way to suppress being educated. thosek if we could clear things up, we would get along ways down the road. host: that is daniel in texas. more interaction from across the local divide in the wake of those package bombs delivered yesterday. --ator thom tillis from

republican from north carolina writing the american way is engaging in civil debate and settling things at the ballot box. violence and domestic terrorism have no place in society. the perpetrators who targeted the obamas, clinton's, and the media must be held accountable and punished. another tweet from senator marco rubio, an attack on american who happens to be a democrat, republican, or independent is an attack on america. the terrorist behind this will find out while a free people have politics that are conflictive, if you try to kill any of us, you will have to face all of us. democrat from virginia mark warner tweeting we have to stand together against those who would replace our process with acts of violence. the media is not our enemy and the people we disagree with it are not our enemy. romney, from mitt disgusting, vile threats and

actions against fellow americans in our institutions are sadly unsurprising. hate acts follow hate speech. it is time for us to turn down rhetoric.t the rabid one more column from the washington post, this is dan, a longtime washington post political columnist talking about the politics of the apocalypse. he writes even a moment when political leaders find common rhetorical ground cannot root -- cannot erase the reality of the times we now live. this is the politics of the apocalypse, an all or nothing view of the differences of winning and losing an election or holding power and not holding it. -- it haso intensified as of late. no one really knows how to roll it back. say it is time for the country to come together. political rhetoric has escalated dramatically, spurred by

divisions and aided by social media. this has created two americas. forces not long ago that had been suppressed have been emboldened and unleashed. if you want to read more from that column about the politics of the apocalypse, it is in the washington post. robert in waldorf, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. you watch this thing and the media and the democrats -- you have got hillary clinton saying there will be no stability unless we win and barack obama saying if you bring a knife, we bring a gun and eric holder saying when they go low, we kick them. the biggest problem we have is the media and the democrats party work together as one. this is a scripted, orchestrated, time sensitive release of this. if this was a real thing, this

is so made up by the democrat party. this is what they call an october surprise. two weeks before election and we've got some fake, phony bombs. these are fake, phony bombs. this is made up just to blame this on trump. you guys have made up from everything in your playbook and now you are pulling things out of stalin's playbook. the problem in this country, we have communists in this country. you guys are all communists trying to tear down competition and tear this country apart and you have taken off your mask because you lost. are you someone inclined to believe conspiracy theories? caller: this is a con job. you people are conning the american people. host: that is robert from waldorf, maryland. periodew york is waiting

caller: good morning. i hope you can hear me. i have crappy phone service. i have heard all these remarks. host: i am not hearing you. you have heard all these remarks about what? caller: i have heard all of these remarks. anymore?ody pray --you want to tone it down go to your home, take five minutes and pray to the one who created you. no man is going to change your life. put you here. no politician put me here and no save your is going to

soul. you can argue all you want about your physical body. i believe in prophecy and i believe in the afterlife and i believe the signs are here that if you truly do -- what you truly do will hurt to save your soul. the time is to get close to god. thanks, c-span. donald trump needs to be locked up in guantanamo bay. he has been involved in all kinds of crimes and he needs to go to guantanamo bay with those talibans. host: harry in georgia, good morning. caller: good morning, all. thanks for c-span, number one. i have got a couple things to say. john who called a few colors ago is a perfect -- callers ago is a perfect example.

republicans have seen the demographics are going to destroy their chance at leadership and what they are doing is they are throwing out all the rules and trying to stuff in places as many advantages as they can. the gerrymandering, they are now using such high tech ability that they can get large democrat majorities in the congressional vote and still get large majorities in the republican representation. , it's like they see the future coming and they are trying to change it or trying to forestall it. i wanted to make a comment that it is rather hilarious to watch donald trump talk about civility in politics and i thank you all

very much for your show. ine up next in washington. liker: hi, it seems to me so many of your callers are so inflamed that hillary lost the popular -- lost the election, but won the popular vote. 4e won the popular vote by million in california alone. she won the vote in california by 4 million. she won the popular vote by 3 million which means she was short one million votes in the rest of the country and yet they are wanting the state of california to govern the entire country to choose our president. that is not right. getting rid of the electoral vote and being so inflamed over everything he says -- that trump says.

he admires someone with a body slam? you have to remember, trump was body slammed himself on video at some kind of a fight. of coarse he would appreciate it because he has been the product of it. they make such a big deal out of what he says. i am a sticks and stones can break my bones person. words can't hurt me person. it seems like they democrats have gone so far to the sensitivity level that they will find anything they can possibly and the inflamed themselves that is ridiculous and absurd. childishness.ch not that there isn't a lot on both sides. words don't do anything.

the only thing that matters is what this man does. political issue of rhetoric in our society today has con up -- come up. during the florida's governor debate, the candidates asked about that issue. [video clip] >> have we reached a point where divisive political rhetoric -- one even called the opposite party evil, crossed a line to push some people over the edge? >> it is great to be here. i am ron desantis, an iraq veteran, former prosecutor on a mission to protect florida's future. i was at the congressional baseball practice when a gunman tried to shoot steve -- did heot steve scalise because did not like republicans. when we go down that road, that can be deadly. i condemn that and i condemn

what happened today. we need to get the facts -- >> i think the answer is absolutely it is. countryround the elected officials were targeted. thankfully, nobody was hurt in .oday incidents we saw a collapsing of our political discourse. my opponent, as soon as he won the nomination for governor went on fox news and said to voters not to monkey the state up by electing me. we have seen neo-nazis in power and saw what happened in charlottesville, the moral equivocation this president has demonstrated. host: that debate in florida. if you want to watch it in its

entirety, you can do so on our website at c-span.org. speaking of debates, just one of the many debates we have been airing and continue to air today. more today including henry mcmaster debating james smith in the south carolina's governor's race. live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. the wyoming u.s. senate debate between john barrasso and gary trone are, live coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. on c-span and at c-span.org, you can listen on the free radio app. tomorrow, the ohio senate debate between sharon brown and jim brown.he -- sherrod live coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. on c-span, c-span.org, and the radio app. a few minutes left in this segment, getting your calls asking for ways to make the political climate less hostile. phone lines split up by region.

202-748-8000 in the eastern or central time zones. 202-748-8001 if you are in a mountain or pacific time zones. brenda, lakeland, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i think respect is the bottom line here. i think the president should be respected whether you are republican or democrat, whoever you voted for. he deserves respect. if you don't respect him, you should respect the seat, the office. that is all, thank you. host: danny in texas, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to encourage everybody to take a step outside their bubbles. the gentleman who called in earlier from illinois and said everybody should move to areas where people agree with him and i absolutely disagree. what makes our country strong is we are different. everything around our country

says e pluribus unum. maybe the younger people get off of reddit and maybe engage somebody who is different. that is what keeps our country strong. it is only special interests who want us divided. presidents will come and go. oregon. portland, good morning. caller: i find it hilarious when you have callers calling in and talking stuff like trump needs to go to jail and blah, blah, blah. all you can do is laugh your head off. i blame a lot of this discourse on the media. right after the election, this started. won anit ironic this guy award from the naacp and now we

his -- he is the biggest racist on the planet. it is disgusting. number one you this what we are spending on illegal aliens it will make your head spin. $338 billion. host: where do you get that number from? caller: i live in portland. host: where do you get the $338 billion number from? the number, where did you get that from? caller: like you would not believe. it is really ridiculous what they are doing. portland, is sandy in oregon. brian in virginia, good morning. caller: i think a solution to that is to have a discourse where instead of having the media focus on sensationalism by cherry picking facts to get a reaction and focus on the real -- the real facts. the media, every time trump

tweets a lie or distortion, they -- oneit 99 times, but time out of 100 they repeat the lie. even though it is a lie, if you repeat it 99 times, you will and no one public will know what to believe. that woman was defending trump and her lies and if you focus on the factual information, you will see the president is treasonous. it is not just conclusion. colluded. --s guy created more treason host: when it comes to media coverage of the president, you are specifically talking about want the mediaou to pay less attention to what the president is tweeting? caller: not at all.

of course you repeat what the president says, but at least repeat the truth to refute his lies 50% of the time that you repeat his lies. 90% of the time they are repeating his lies and a small amount do they say this is not factual and here is the real fact. at least 50% of the time, report the real facts so people like the other caller thinking that angel --is a saving ombs were just made up, they were fake bombs. they are making up their reality. that should be refuted right away. instead of making up a reality, there has got to be a certain resource here. host: marshall up next in

florida. good morning. heard so fari have exampler callers is an of what is wrong with the country today. most of what we are hearing is not factual. is aard someone say trump traitor, treasonous. unfortunately, you did not question where he got his information from. by the way, i want to mention, the other day i called when the on as aesident was conservative. i called and got through 7 times and was hung up on. i am not sure why that happened. i have not gotten through on your show. until now. host: what are some ways to make

the political climate less hostile? that is our question today. caller: everybody is saying take a step back and take a breath. , theyour second breath are making statements that are inflammatory. what we need to do as far as i am concerned is to practice kindness for each other. when we say we need to be more fine, that is find, -- but unless you are going to practice civility with the person who disagrees with you ok, we disagree, it is not going to work. we have a situation in this country and we have women onning around with vaginas their head when trump was elected. we have national monuments being turned down. i hope this isn't true. i despise anybody sending any type of threats to somebody in office. i kind of agree with what one of your callers said.

said. we are two weeks out your what mr. colder -- two weeks. what mr. holder has called for, that is the playbook. we are going to send the bombs whether they are real or not, and blame the republicans to tone. the town -- kay is in ohio. thatr: i just want to say the president has people protesting and people like madonna saying they want to blow up the white house, everything has been hate. it has never been like this for

any election. my first election i voted for mcgovern and he did not win. because of all this negative feedback that has happened because we didn't get our way, i will never be a democrat again. i think the real problem stems from the people who have the money and power like pelosi and clinton and all the people in hollywood, and they need to stand up and say enough is enough. all this fighting at restaurants and all these protests and angry late-night talk shows that are supposed to be political are filled with hatred for trump. it is enough. i think we need our leaders that are democrats to stand up and say, it has come to the point where people are sending bombs. i think we have taken it too far. let's work together and grow up and shake our hands across the world like they did after the

civil war. we need the leaders like loc and all of them -- pelosi or all of them who look like they are during cut during the -- the president's speech -- host: we will have discussion next on political advertising. steve mcmahon and todd harris will be here to talk about the best and worst political ads of the 2018 cycle. us on ray maddow joins estate and inheritance tax law. we will be right back. ♪

>> booktv is live all weekend from the texas book festival in austin, starting saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern with his own antennae of vargas and his book -- antonio vargas and his book. sarah march with her book, "heartland." presidential historian michael pesch lock discussions his -- discusses his book. ." on sunday,ry live coverage continues at noon eastern with stanford universities francis fukuyama discussing -- journalist laura

"how aith her book -- group of undocumented immigrants changed what it means to be american." mark leibovitz talks about his game -- his new book. mimi smarts on her book. watch live coverage of the texas book festival in austin, this weekend on c-span twos booktv. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday , university eastern of delaware professor tiffany gill on the role of african-american women in the civil rights movement. the 1968 broadcast, "the nixon answer." the 30th anniversary of the tenement museum in new york city.

at 8:00, former first lady barbara bush's grandchildren and laura bush reflect on her life and legacy. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. host: at about this time we like to take stock of political ads, which are good and which are bad. consultants,edia .odd harris and steve mcmahon what makes a good ad? what is the metric of success? caller: and add the people can understand and remember -- an ad that people can understand and remember. there are so many ads out there that it is difficult to make the

impression that you want because they go by and sometimes they are stacked. and at that is memorable, funny -- an ad that is memorable, funny, self decker -- self-deprecating, that is the key. caller: i would add something that can tell a story, which is often really hard to do in 30 seconds. some of the best political advertising does that. , you not just tell a story have to tell the story in a way that advances your message and narrative. if you are able to tell a really good story in a way that is messagee and deliver a that moves the ball for you, you have probably got a pretty good ad. host: 30 seconds is the standard length, but we are in the age of web ad. some of these are much longer than 30 seconds.

can you talk about how that works and what the strategy is? , more andse things more advertising you want to be what we call screen agnostic. you want to create a piece of advertising that can work whether somebody is watching it on television, on their computer , on their ipad, their phone. the benefit, one of the great things about the digital advertising is that you are not 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 60 seconds. you can make it as long as you are able to attract eyeballs and key people watching. what that allows you to do is to go deeper into somebody's story. so literally, these little mini movies that are like two and three minutes long that really connect a candidate to the voter in an emotional way.

let's talk about host: -- host: let's talk about perhaps one of the most widely successful. [video clip] doriss is a story about -- doors, a lot of them. that is me, and air force combat veteran and a mom. is all thathind me is left from the aircraft i was flying. i was on a rescue mission in afghanistan as a combat search and rescue pilot. i heard the windshield crack and realized i had been shot. we airlifted the patient's out. after taking more fire, we crashed a few miles away. memories wasst another door, my dad throwing my

mom through a glass one. three years later, mom got the courage to walk out the door and she opened a new one for my sister and me here in texas. here, i put my foot on the gas and followed my dream to be a pilot, and that meant opening, pushing, and sometimes kicking through every door in my way. host: that ad goes on about another two minutes or so, but what makes it so successful? guest: it is what it talks about. you are seeing someone story being told by them in a pretty interesting, compelling way. the man who made that ad wanted to be a filmmaker but came a media consent -- media consultant. his whole motive is to tell a story in 30 seconds, but if you give him a minute and a half or two, he can still -- tell a story richer and deeper. one of the things you see when

you are watching television, we are seeing fewer of the ads where it is scary music and everything is dark and gray and saying,st on the screen john smith raised your taxes 58 times. you are seeing negative ads being told through third parties that make them much more effective. this ad when viral. i think she raised $2.5 million to $3 million on the ad when it went viral. it is pretty remarkable. host: i want to invite viewers to join the conversation, let us know what you like or do not like about political ads. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 host: todd harris, your thoughts? guest: it was phenomenal.

anytime a new ad comes out from a campaign where all of a sudden the media consultants are emailing it around, that is how i found out about it. it was not from a news story. i had several media consultants email it to me and say, have you seen this? it does an incredible job of telling her story in a way that is, as steve said, visually compelling. it makes you want to keep watching, which when you are doing advertising for the digital space, especially on what is called pre-roll, the video you have to watch before you watch the video that you actually want to watch, on pre-roll advertising you need to hold people because they can click that button that says skip ad. does an like this incredible job of holding the eyeball. host: this is an example of one of the more traditional 32nd tv

commercials. [video clip] i am brian camp -- >> i am brian kemp. i am so conservative i blow up government spending. i own guns but no one is taking them away. my chainsaw is ready to rip away regulations. i have a big truck in case i need to roundup criminal illegals and take them home myself. yet, i just said that -- yes, i just said that. if you want a politically incorrect conservative, that is me. host: that got something like 400,000 views as of yesterday. can you tell us what went into making it and what made it successful? guest: that was a collaborative spot that my firm produced. we are real proud of that we were brought in late into his campaign. there was maybe five to six weeks left in the primary.

he was down about 7% in the polls and the campaign said, we need something that -- not quite a hail mary, but something that will shake up this race. we quickly got to know a little bit about brian. the original inspiration for googledwas if people the dollar shave club, they sell razor blades, but their online advertising is fantastic. we wanted to do something that kind of mimicked that, with lots of quick vignettes. host: from a democrats' perspective -- democrat's perspective, your ad -- your thoughts? to tuneou want people it in.

in a republican primary, the harsher, trump-ian kind of rhetoric works well, and it got him the nomination which i do not know if he was able to get. he did exactly what he needed to do, but it's sort of made him trump. in the georgia risk -- race, you have donald trump running against aim more moderate candidate. guest: i would not call her mom -- moderate. kemp is now donald trump and that may or may not be successful. host: political advertising on the television and web, that is our subject for the next 45 minutes. now would be a good time to let us know about your favorite ad of the cycle. elena is up in illinois, republican. fallon,i enjoy jimmy

especially when he does talk about donald trump. he does it without demeaning donald trump. he is very funny. he brings attention to donald trump, and he is the best late-night comedian and very kindhearted too. think that when a political candidate is running with $500,000 in their pocket to dispose of, what utter way to do it than to help -- better way to do it than to help somebody pay their mortgage off or make a donation to lower the cost of hospitalization for people that are suffering and need to recover. host: if i told you the projection in 2018 is up to as much as $2.9 billion, that is what is expected to be spent on all political advertising the cycle, what do you think? caller: that is appalling,

especially when we are trying to make ends meet with the high insurance premium. i am paying $2000 a month for an insurance premium. we are not taking any vacations. host: thanks for the call. todd harris on the growth in spending on political ads, how much is it for a candidate's budget? guest: it depends entirely on the nature of the race, but if you are running statewide, you want to be budgeting -- a good campaign will budget about 75% of their total spend on voter contact. that does not necessarily mean television. --t could be male, phones, , but you want to use 75% of the money to talk to

voters as opposed to administrative staff. it is definitely the biggest chunk. host: the other issue she brings up his celebrities speaking about politicians. i do not know if jimmy fallon has done an ad, but can you talk about celebrity involvement in the ad making process? guest: down in texas, ted cruz is seeing the effect of celebrity involvement with a prominent director making some ads on behalf of beto o'rourke. host: this is from the political action community, teaming up with richard linklater. [video clip] >> somebody left this on my door the other day, ted cruz telephone taxes. come on. somebody called my wife a dog and said my daddy was in on the kennedy assassination, i would not be kissing their ass.

you should give them a few choice words or drag their ass by the would shed and kick their ass, ted. come on, ted. >> not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. guest: that is one of the best ads and that is one of the most negative ads even though he delivers the lines with a smile on his face. you want to hear the . -- here the next line. host: he is an actor. guest: it is not often you are watching a political ad and wishing it is longer. nost: it is a fantastic ad matter what somebody thinks of ted cruz. i think just about everybody laughed at that. it is one of those ads where the message is so effective because voters do not realize that they are being delivered a political message. it is not until you start

thinking about it later that that add its you at the gut level. it is not an intellectual message. it is not like, you are three polling points that we need to deliver. it is completely at the emotional level and the best advertising usually is. it is a character play. when you think about a political character, there is performance attributes that they do their job well, show up, vote the way you would like, there are character attributes, do admire , and then there is called connected to the future attributes which is their vision for future. this goes squarely in the character box. you might think this guy is one thing but when you hear these things, you might think entirely different. it is about the character of a man, what kind of man tolerates these insults to his wife and family, and is that kind of --

the kind of man you want to support? host: do you feel that hollywood wants to get more involved in political advertising these days? guest: ever since arnold schwarzenegger which todd worked for. whont worked for val kilmer wanted to become governor of new mexico. i said, why? he said, since arnold schwarzenegger did it everyone in hollywood wants to. everybody in hollywood wants to be a politician. everyone who is a politician wants to hang out with hollywood celebrities. --t: what about holiday hollywood directors doing what you do? guest: this is a great example. this is a wonderful addition. everybody is out there to participate. host: paul is up next and ohio, republican. caller: how are you folks doing. and i think topic

in this environment, the political ads that are running now seem to put fuel to the fire of all the political disagreements we have it infuriates people when they are watching it home all of the ads of negativity. if i see a negative ad by one of the candidates who tries to dig up a bunch of dirt about anything, i will just turn the station. you are not going to grab my attention by running a negative ad about somebody else. i just flip the station, so you lost my vote. shown the first ad about the individual who gave a story about their particular life, then i will do the fact finding myself as to whether or not i think it is credible or not. the opportunity on these ads is for the politician to get their face out, their name, and give a

little bit of snippet of their life and what they believe in to what they want the public have faith in, and based on what kind of credentials. the negative ad, i just flip the station. host: todd harris, on the negative ads? guest: every media consultant goes through this every single cycle, because when you go into focus groups and show them a negative ad, everybody hates them. they say exactly what this caller just said. when you put negative ads up on tv, the candidates everywhere they go, people will come up to them and say why are you running these negative ads? the fact is, they work. the reason why we run negative ads is because they work. host: how do we know? guest: you can see it in the

polling. if for example i am running an ad that says steve wants to raise taxes, you start training -- tracking in your data, does steve mcmahon want to raise taxes? when you seen that line going up , you know it is having an impact. guest: one time we did a panel focus group which means you take a bunch of people in a room and show them a bunch of ads, and bring them back in two weeks. we showed them a bunch of ads and heard what todd described. you bring them back two weeks later and say, two weeks ago we showed you dose -- a bunch of ads. tell us everything you remember. they remember the negative ads, not the positive ones. the reason you are seeing more of the kind of ads the viewer or admiring, the doors add

others executed like movies or short stories, that gives people a better chance of remembering the ad. it is a good thing for politics. guest: there is also, without bogging us down into campaign finance issues, but one of the reasons why especially candidates for federal office are doing more ads like the doors ad is because with the rise of all of these outside super pac's, the super pac's are carrying the negative message. campaigns used to have to do both. you used to have to run your positive and negative spots. there are federal campaigns we work on these days where if there is an outside group running negative ads against your opponent, 100% of your positive,s message is which means you have more

opportunities to tell stories like that. host: amy mcgrath, her announcement in kentucky six district running against the congressman. [video clip] , iwhen i was 12 years old knew i wanted to fly fighter jets and land on aircraft carriers because that is the toughest flying you can do. when i was 13, my congressman told me i could not fly in combat. he thought women ought to be protected and not allowed to serve in combat. i never got a letter back from i senator mitch mcconnell. -- my senator mitch mcconnell. i wrote every member of the house services committee and asked them to change the law. couldn't,em told me i and then i got into the naval academy, that is when they changed the law. i am amy mcgrath and i love this country. i am a marine and i was the

first women marine -- women marine to fly in an f eight in combat. -- i am running against andy who said he would vote enthusiastically to take health care away from a quarter million kentuckians. host: taking your calls this morning about political advertisement, fred is up next in cherry hill, new jersey, the line for democrats. caller: living where i do in south jersey, i get to see ads for both new jersey and pennsylvania. guest: lucky you. caller: the best one is one for the governor running for reelection in pennsylvania that features a dog name libre and it is about the laws they signed for dogs and cats.

many, i cannotso pick any particular one out. for the two senate candidates in new jersey are almost entirely negative. i see so many negative ads for congressional races, it is just a complete turnoff. i will be glad when election day has come and gone and i will not have to look at these things anymore. host: todd harris? guest: i always encourage anyone who wants to get into media consulting, go out and spend a little time in these targeted districts or targeted media markets. when you are in your hotel room, turn on local tv, because it really gives you a sense of what people at home are being exposed to. i was in iowa a few days ago and was watching local tv, and

literally every single ad was a political ad, everything from the governor's race all the way down to local legislative races. i would say 90% of them looked exactly like. they were indistinguishable from each other. strategistng to two veteran media political consultants. give folks a sense of what you do at something else strategies. guest: we make political advertising mostly for candidate campaigns and outside groups. we do a little bit of corporate work, but our job is to tell stories with video and pictures. when we meet with the candidate, we will start dissect in their lives,- dissecting their their character, and think of the best way to package their story in a way that is

compelling and delivers a message. host: how long have you been in this business? guest: i have been in politics forever. we started this firm about 10 years ago. host: steve mcmahon? local strategies. guest: we do less political candidate work but we are storytellers for clients. regardless of whether the client is a political organization or party, or a corporation or brand, the goal is to tell their story in an effective and compelling way that is authentic to them, and most people from a perception they might presently hold to a perception you want them to hold. it is similar to a political campaign, regardless of whether it is a political candidate or party or organization. guest: one of the things we see a lot -- and steve is the master at this -- the corporate clients that we have, the reason why

they would hire a firm like ours -- and steve has a political background as well -- because so many corporations now say we want to make an ad that has the kind of impact that political advertising has. so much corporate advertising is soap overo maybe sell a three-year span. political advertising is designed to get group a to take c and it isdate very specific and targeted. host: mike, new york city, republican. caller: thank you for discussing this. i have a quick statement and a question, and they are connected. in regards to the ads we have heard, i think a lot of the problems we are dealing with is everyone is inundated with all information and then we are expected to all of a sudden in

our minds think, ok, now it is political season, i have to pay attention to this, but i'm still getting hammered with advertisers and information and things going on in the world that 10 years ago i never knew about. here is an added about the senator from new jersey is a crook, and add from new york, this and that. , how doion to you is you as advertisers and marketers cut through all the noise to try to actually get your message great, ist another, have got to sit through eight seconds of another youtube video? do you find there is any correlation between the inundation people are feeling, that that is affecting the voter turnout going down every year? people getting tired of hammered by ads like the guy from south jersey. guest: it is a great question.

voter turnout this year is probably going to be higher than it has been in a midterm maybe going back as far as 1914. host: you are looking at the early vote numbers? guest: and the enthusiasm on both sides. the advertising, people are inundated with it. you go to a hotel and you will watch ads wall-to-wall and most of them looks the same -- look the same. take the story in a compelling way about your candidate in a way that people will remember. one of the old rules of politics is you had to show an ad for 1000 gross rating points, which means every viewer needs to see it 10 times to get it. the reason is because it was not memorable. you were banging it into their head. if you can run an ad two to three times that is memorable, you can get more ads in the same

1000 gross points and you get to deliver most -- more messages. guest: we have a category that we call clutter cutters, a category of advertising designed to cut through the clutter on television. it places a premium on storytelling, a premium on humor, a premium on doing something -- not trying to do too much, but do one thing really effectively. host: compelling and memorable are the terms you used. do you think dan helmer did it with this ad? he was one of six running against barbara comstock. [video clip] ♪ >> here you go, congresswoman

comstock. not that isn't that congresswoman comstock at the bar? >> it sure is. >> bet you cannot get her to hold a town hall? >> i will do you one better than that. "you've lost that loving feeling." >> know, dan. dan., >> ♪ never holds any more town halls with constituents you're trying hard not to show it but barbara, barbara, you know it feelingost that you've been a right-wing feeling we've lost that loving feeling now it's gone, gone, gone you've got to go ♪

guest: speaking of val kilmer, of the three authentic, memorable, and compelling, it fails on two counts. it is memorable but not necessarily the memory you want viewers to have a view. it is not authentic and compelling. he was throwing a hail mary. he probably only had one ad to run but this one did not get it done. he would've been better off hiring mark putnam, which the winner did. i am sorry, i am sorry for you, sir. guest: one of the best things a candidate can do is be self-deprecating. you do not get that from watching this because you get the sense that he actually kind of believes that he is "top gun." it is embarrassing. host: you used the term "clutter

cutter." this is kim reynolds. ♪ >> fred hubble will be raising taxes. >> $1000 for family. >> that is how it works. >> i know groceries are expensive, but so are fred's ideas. >> income property and sales tax are going up. >> fred hubble will raise taxes and you are not going to like it. >> if you do not want your taxes to go up, do not vote for fred hubble. >> you want me to put the tax hikes where? guest: that is a spot we did for kim reynolds to be the governor of iowa. a "clutterexample of cutter." there is nothing else on television in iowa that looks like that. we have been talking about our opponent's tax plan for weeks

and weeks, and we wanted to find a way at the end to reinforce that message, but do it in a way that was fun and a little bit funny. that ad just started today. host: white plains, new york, andrew is a democrat. caller: thank you for c-span and these guests. i am thinking about the cost of the governor's race in illinois right now. i am thinking about the money being thrown into different candidates races. i think your guests are as much of a problem that you tried to address in the previous segment, political stability. how do we restore civility if smart guys like you are doing their best to create divisive this to distinguish their own candidate? guest: it is a great question. you might be surprised, but todd and i rode into this interview this morning.

we have been friends for a long time. we work on opposite sides of the aisle often for candidates who compete directly, but we are civil. there is no reason washington and politics cannot be civil. the tone right now is dangerous. the recent events with the pipe bombs indicate we are living in a different time right now. thank god, the white house yesterday even said, time to tone it down and come together a little bit more. i am hopeful that will happen. i am not optimistic but maybe that is a start. host: will you see that in political advertisement? guest: i do not think you well, but most political advertisement is not demonizing, not calling the opponent the kinds of names that you sometimes hear on the stump from our president, as much as i hate to say that. you sometimes hear it from the

left aimed at the president, which i do not like to see either. most of the political ads are about issues and issue differences, and our hard-hitting, but for the most part they are not demonizing. they might be making fun of someone's character like the ted cruz add, they are not doing what we see more and more of today, not inciting people to attack reporters, inciting people to political violence. that line should not be crossed. guest: the reality is that i have not seen any advertising or candidate advertising the cycle that is anywhere near as divisive as watching an hour of cable news. so news has become coarsened, so divisive because it is a reflection of what is happening, which is all advertising is, it holds a

andor up to the public politicians are public opinion entrepreneurs. they sell what the public is buying. host: ann, an independent. caller: how are you guys doing? host: doing well. or two i have a second to see if you can ask your guests some questions. we have some questions about how electionsted our last about divisiveness in the united states. would you ask them if they work with the russians or any other government entity that are not representative of the united states and how that can be explained from the behavioral aspect of putting these ads together? what is going on with the media

in terms of their interest outside of the united states in taking dollars? host: let me let our guests answer. guest: we do not work for any foreign governments and never have. guest: no. host: bob, houston, texas, republican. caller: i just wanted to comment on the ted cruz ad. ands a big supporter of his then when he did not get the nomination, i went over to trump and i was wondering what was going to happen after all of that. you know, i am glad he buried the hatchet with donald trump because they were able to work together and get tax cuts done, things like that. -- are mean in mean and they say a lot of things in campaigns. people cannot get over that and work together. i think ted cruz shows what a bigger man he is and that ad

will backfire. you cannot buy a candidate in texas, buddy. i am a good old boy, a small business owner. i have had my own wrecker for 40 years. in texas, you cannot buy an election. across thee beto united states but down here, that stuff will not fly. guest: he raises a great point, certainly inyone the chattering class, in the putllate court, and i will myself in that category of people who thought that ad was really funny, really well done, and a really good piece of advertising, it remains to be seen whether that ad is convincing anybody who wasn't already planning on voting against ted cruz to vote against him.

it is certainly doing a great job speaking to everyone who doesn't like ted cruz, but ultimately in a close race you are trying to get those few undecided voters in the middle to swing one way or the other. host: a little more than 15 minutes left in this segment, taking your calls on the best and worst political ads of the cycle. this ad firm republican turned democrat richard painter was universally panned as it came senate the minnesota democratic primary. [video clip] >> some people see a dumpster fire and do nothing but watch the spectacle. some are too scared to face the danger or think it will benefit them to keep on burning. say, all thisnd stuff about dumpster fires is fake news. there is an inferno raising -- raging in washington, but in the

land of 10,000 lakes, we know how to put out a fire. i am richard painter and i approve this message. mcmahon, that ad was certainly memorable. guest: it was. , am sure he is wonderful man but he got some bad advice. ,hoever his media consultant is they were trying to do something memorable and throw a long ball. host: what didn't work? guest: you didn't want to lean in and see more. part of it is richard painter's delivery was not compelling. know,ea itself, i don't it just doesn't strike me as being particularly authentic or compelling. it is different and memorable in its own way, but not necessarily in a way you would want your ad to be memorable. guest: they turn him into a crazy person.

the thing about richard painter is that he is actually really, really smart, really well educated. he is a fantastic lawyer and has a good story to tell. none of that was communicated in this ad. instead, literally he looks like a crazy person. he looks more like someone who might have set that fire. guest: the arsonist. guest: when someone who is going to put it out. host: republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not have anything from the cycle, but i noticed in 2016 i was a trump supporter. a hillary clinton add that fired -- ad that fired me up the most was they ran a couple of clips of trump at his rallies, i would like to punch this guy in the face and, i do not know what i said. that fired me up and i am

wondering if you are worried that your ads backfire and fire up the opposition. guest: it is possible that adds sometimes backfire. -- ads sometimes backfire. the caller in texas pointed out that the ad that goes up against -- goes against ted cruz's character will not work. one of the reasons you test ads before you put them on is because you want to figure out if it will advance your argument and be effective, or whether it will backfire and be ineffective. danger of third-party groups, and particularly clever hollywood types that have a great idea, they are not necessarily tethered like a media consultant in a campaign, here is the message, we need to effectively, authentically, and here's the outcome we expect to get.

sometimes they have a great idea that they want to make into an ad that they want to put on the air and the campaign has to deal with it. in terms of the beto campaign, they welcomed this particular ad and director, but campaigns often lose control of the dialogue because of third parties. dost: have you ever had an a that backfired? guest: i do not know that we have ever let it get that far. gate ad right out of the it is clear it will trend the wrong way, you make an adjustment before that happens. most political advertising is designed to do one of three things. you can usually break this all down into three categories, trying to educate, persuade, or motivate. most of the advertising that you see right now, as we are on the

doorstep of this election, you are no longer trying to educate. if you are still trying to persuade, you are probably at the very end of that phase. right now, you are trying to motivate your voters to turn out and vote on election day. that the hillary ad caller did not like so much, it was not aimed at him. it was aimed at hillary supporters trying to motivate them to turn out and vote. obviously, it did not do that enough. host: north carolina, joe, independent. caller: i want to start out with one of the most famous. blaine campaign, continental liar from the state of maine.

historians remember that. as a researcher, it becomes very easily. i also think about points in history, jimmy carter, great, moral person but not the best picker of people in the cabinet. they drug him down. that leads back into modern-day things. ridsire for people to get of cookie-cutter politicians in washington for something fresh, new, and a fresh voice to be speeches.ides i would say this -- and i think this is important -- having taken my graduate studies in texas, i listened more than i speak in that regard. people are looking for the voice and trying to

cut through all the bs. host: what were the speeches for? who have you written speeches for? caller: i would rather not say. to just about everyone you see on tv one time or another. host: thanks to the call from north carolina. the history he brings up, can you explain that, and cutting through to the authenticity? guest: if you go back and look at some of the original political advertisements, even from the colonial days, the , the tools they used psychology behind it was all the same in terms of what we do today. the tactics were different, but the thinking and strategy was all the same. i do think he raises an excellent point about

authenticity. right now, there is such discussed with virtually -- di sgust with washington on both sides. everyone hates what happens with washington, so the more you can present your candidate as an outsider -- which means do not have them talk, look, or act like a politician -- the more you can do that, especially in a republican primary where people are very much anti-washington. the more you can do that, the better. mcmahon, steve in illinois, an independent. caller: in illinois, we have a lot of negative advertising. i have been out canvassing for different candidates and have talked to another woman particularly who is very

confused and watching the negative advertising. it made her more confused. i am kind of sad for her. one of the things i noticed, donald trump did not really rely on consultant so much. he is such an authentic voice and people responded to it because of that. he spoke from the heart and a lot of ways that people felt. he did not rely on the consulting class. host: thanks for the call. do you want to catch your breath? todd harris can jump in. guest: the reality is the reality is the trump campaign employed all kinds of consultants, but he followed his gut. there were lots of people telling him what they thought he should do, but there is no question that probably more than any, certain more than any modern president, probably more than any modern political figure

, the president followed his gut and obviously it worked for him. host: what are your thoughts on don blankenship following his ran in thes ad he west virginia senate primary? [video clip] >> i am don blankenship. mitch mcconnell has created millions of jobs for china people. mitch has gotten rich. as china family has given him tens of millions of dollars. they are running false negative ads against me and childish calling me despicable and mentally ill. the war to drain the swamp and create jobs for west virginia people has come. i will be joe manchin and cocaine mitch. host: it looks like a hostage video. -- guest: it looks like a hostage video. secondly, it is racist. i guess his strategy was name-calling. todd mentioned the

anti-washington thing, but you do not usually see a republican candidate going after the republican leader of the united states. lost, he is bitter about it, and was unable to get himself back on the ballot as an independent. that was not a very good way to do it. offensive, poorly executed, poorly conceived. conceived. it goes back into the, like the "top gun" add, more embarrassing -- ad, more embarrassing. host: paul in florida, go ahead. caller: my mind is a little off politics. when you are referring to these packages being delivered to all these politicians across the united states, and one thing

coming across my mind, we see some of these images on tv. when i am curious about is, why are we not seeing any canceling postage marks from the post office on the stamps or anything, on these packages? host: that investigation is still underway, and we will keep you updated on the latest this morning as it comes in. just a few more minutes with our panel, several questions about political advertising, less than two weeks from the election. nancy is in north carolina, line for democrats. caller: it is nice to speak to all of you and listen. a great subject. i agree with many of your callers. i turn off the ads. i do not listen or read the ads you get in mail.

i have already voted in north carolina. fromnot remember any ad 2016 and today i did not pay any attention, but at 69 years of age, i think you might remember the ad from 1964. the little girl, the daisy, and the bomb. it was an ad for lbj running for president. that has been a historical add. -- ad. 30 seconds long, the only voice you heard was the little girl. that can be used again. guest: that was a great ad. here is something most people do not realize, it only ran once and it is a roadblock. it ran once on each network and was retired. it was very effective and famous. host: why was it retired? guest: because it was so effective and compelling it

basically ended the race. it was not an ad that needed to be seen 10 times or three times for people to remember it. it is probably the first real example of good advertising that is different, that sticks out, the does not need to be viewed multiple times to make an impact. this viewer remembers it 55 or 60 years later. host: are there others that had that much of an effect? guest: we talked about ads that did not do well. mike dukakis and the tank ad. 1988,llie horton ad in the legend is that it ended the race. i am not sure, but it certainly had a major impact in reframing that race and making it hard for mike dukakis. guest: reagan's morning in america ad, that is still kind what atouchstone of

great, positive reelection advertising can look like. host: and he in portland, tennessee, independent. -- andy is in portland, tennessee, independent. caller: i will start off with saying, locker up. trump is saying lock her up. play the audio of the child that was locked up at a detention center, asking for her mother. if you believe in making american -- america great again, vote republican. #make america great again. guest: you could take the beginning of that ad and also run the people from the trump campaign who are being locked up. , a could run the little girl series of lock her up ads.

thank you for bringing it to our attention. guest: probably more for steve than me. host: daniel in minnesota, democrat. caller: good morning. i got an ad i would like to run. the perfect ad would be for the storytelling and to get the story across and address many other issues in bullying and all people would like to have done and maybe is not done. how would i go about getting something like that presented to somebody to show how to go about it? guest: certainly, if he has idean idea for 1 -- got an for one of his local candidates, the way to start is in the candidate's office. i will say, everyone has got theories and ideas on advertising because it is the piece of the campaign that is the most public facing.

ideas for spots that would end up being like 12 minutes long, but occasionally we get some really good ideas. host: from the general public? guest: yes. guest: i don't know that we have ever executed on one. host: i guess this is a place you can come for story ideas as well. jane in illinois, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to say the best illinois the ad about taking the toilets out of his home. i also think the worst at is clinton with the yard signs, where she used the first name hillary. you don't see hillary, you see clinton. she should have used clinton.

we need to stop using donald's last name because that is his brand. he won't go away. in illinois. jane before we and our program, one more very memorable ad, this is in arizona. an ad against paul gosar. [video clip] >> paul is absolutely not working for his district. >> if they care about health care, they care about their children's health care. they would hold them to account if they care about jobs, they would hold him to account. if he actually cared about people in rural arizona, he would be going for better access to health care. i that he would be researching what is the most insightful water policy to help the

environment of arizona sustain itself and be successful. >> he is not listening to you and he does not have your best interest at heart. gosar, paul gosar is my brother. i endorse dr. david brill for congress. >> i am dr. david brill and i approve this message. wish youat is what you were from a much smaller family. what a great ad. we have professors who want to do an ad against their brother, endorsing their opponent. how much fun is that? guest: the thing i like about that at is the reveal at the end. you're watching it and you think it is just another ad with a man on the street.

you think this is just another one of those and it is not until the end when they say their what yout you realize have just watched is something very special, unique and different. host: thank you for waiting in maine, independent, go ahead. caller: the best political ad that i have seen so far is what is going on in the battle for the new cycle. you know exactly what i am talking about, right? they are taking place right now. they have the caravan and the bombs. the battle for information and the battle for the new cycle and to control the narrative. host: steve mcmahon, final thoughts on that? point,he raises a good it is a battle for control of the new cycle. donald trump is announcing tax plans before the election, even though congress will not be back

in session before the election. he is trying to change the subject and control this new cycle. i am's --e pipe not sure it is going to play in a way that helps republicans and president trump. host: 30 seconds. guest: our politics have become nationalized in a way that we have never seen before. because of that, if you are a surf what you can ever that weight is -- wave is. or you can try to work against it. it is much more effective if the message your campaign is talking about is being echoed and reinforced by what people are seen on the news. -- seeing on the news. at the toddarris is

harris. i appreciate the time. my republican friends and i are going to leave and go home together. host: up next on the washington journal, we are joined by boston college professor ray madoff. it is a topic that is back in the conversation after a work story in the new york times earlier this month about the inheritance that president trump and his siblings received from fred trump. that 18 montht of investigation and we had a chance to sit down and interview him last week to talk about his story. we begin the interview. i asked him how much money president trump received. [video clip] >> it was about $413 million. it continues to this day. trump'sat was president

main goal when it came to transferring his wealth to his children? goal in things that we have read was to transfer that money before he died, outside of the gift tax system. host: you mentioned that it started when president trump was three years old. guest: it started with an ingenious mechanism that fred trump set up. he built his first large apartment complex in brooklyn. he gave the landowner of that complex to a trust. then he began renting the land back from them. he set up a 99 year lease with a renewable for 99 years after that.

this was just one of nearly 300 income streams that you were able to track for your research with the new york times. why so many different income streams? i think he was particularly ingenious about this whole thing. began sending out mortgages for his children as if they were his bankers, even though they were not old enough to have jobs. then he started giving them apartment buildings, which he continued to run. while they were still teenagers. then, the profits from those buildings would go to his children. it was about finding a new way to get them money for not doing work. host: of those 300 different revenue streams that he developed before he died, what was the most profitable one for president trump? guest: i have not thought of

that. that is a good question. donald trump and his siblings took control of all the buildings their father had constructed and sold them all off. day, president trump made $177 million from that quiet sale. that was the single biggest one. i think the other ones were probably the loans that his father gave him, much of which without paying any gift tax on it or certain income tax. and then, also, the buildings that his father gave him, they were collecting in the mid-90's, they were collecting $5 million a piece. from those buildings alone. host: you said this was done with an eye toward getting out

of the state tax system and the gift tax system, can you give us a sense of what president trump ended up saving in terms of taxes with the different revenue streams and the plans he developed? guest: it is hard to get a precise number on that. certainly in the hundreds of millions of dollars. there are examples where any trust that he transferred to his theyren in the 1990's, were able to value some of those buildings at nothing. the truck children could control those buildings without paying any taxes on them at all. some of them were 40 and $50 million and up. dollars of millions of in just 20 or $30 million on individual buildings, it depends on how you value the building that the children are taking control of. host: you found in your research

that donald trump received about six and a half million dollars in specific gifts from fred trump over the years. for those who don't understand the gift tracts -- tax system, why not transfer all the money that way? guest: gift tax is an onerous tax. it was still at 55% in the 90's. , if youre thresholds got over that, it was 55%. he would pay 55% of that and tax government, so by $50,000. anybody who had that kind of money to transfer, avoiding that is a primary goal. host: let's talk about how that money was transferred, -- building supply and maintenance is one of our favorite examples.

in 1992, fred trump and donald trump and his siblings formed this company and the idea was ontothey would add 20% whatever fred trump bought. and split among donald trump and his siblings. french up and his one or two executives would negotiate the price. off county,e them through a bank account and pay that $20,000 for the boiler. he would pay off county $24,000 for the border. that created a surplus of $4000. donald trump and his children would split that. within a few years, that was kicking off more than a million dollars for each of the trump siblings. host: was that legal? guest: from what we have been told, it was not legal.

they did no work for it at all. it had no purpose, other than to avoid taxes. itre was another aspect of based off of legality issues. they would use that instead of the $20,000 that they spent on it. they would use the $24,000 price and apply for rent increases on their rep -- rent regulated property. people we have spoken to have told us that they were filing false documents. if that have been caught, they would have been from a prosecution. host: another term that comes up in your 50,000 word piece, grantor retained annuity trust. guest: we learned quite a lot about that. way forcommon sort of

wealthy people to transfer their assets to their children. outside of the state tax system. bpo has a at that that they run on television where they sit in a winery and it shows the daughter trying to convince her father to go into best way war to avoid to avoid the state tax. the trumps took advantage of that, along with doing it itself. accountantsing that describe as one of the most logical things. you transfer the assets to your children, pay little or no gift taxes and then some money goes back to the parents from the revenues of whatever you're transferring. limit and pushed that

generous bounds beyond recognition. the so grossly undervalued properties they passed through this trust, they made them look worthless and -- when they were incredibly profitable. aty valued the entire thing $41 million. years later, banks knighted at a billion dollars. that gap is what they saved in state taxes. host: what did the trump family say when you presented them with the findings of the story? guest: they did not say anything for some period of time. they held to president trump's talking point that he only received a million dollars. eventually, we sent them more to respond to. their final position was that

everything was wrong about what we were saying but they did not point to any particulars at all. they still have not. trump added that he thought the story was born. host: what response did you get from state and federal regulators after finding out what you came up with in this story? guest: both state and the ark officialsw york city have begun investigations to find out whether there are ways that tax money that has been abated can be best evaded can be brought back. there are statutes of limitations on criminal prosecutions. civil fines and penalties for unpaid taxes and be revisited if they think from was committed. host: trump took part in suspect schemes, one of the investigators in that story, think you so much for your time. guest: thank you.

after that new york times story was published, ray madoff wrote in an op-ed that it should which- shine a light in wealthiest americans can avoid gift tax. madoff, start by explaining what the state tax is and when it kicks in. guest: the estate tax applies to death,nsfer of wealth at we have the gift tax which applies to transfers during life. the estate and gift tax system only applies after you reach a minimum amount. over 99% of americans are exempt it from the estate and gift tax amount because of these generous exceptions. the exemption has been very generous for a long time. around a million dollars.

they have gotten to be they have gotten to be astronomical, 5 million. this pastor, $11.2 million per person. the only people who are currently subject to the estate and gift tax are individuals with assets in excess of $11 million. ,ouples can pass $22 million tax free before having to worry about the estate and gift tax system. it is imposed on only the wealthiest of the wealthy. host: how far back does it go in our tax system? guest: it is almost as old as our income tax system. it was enacted in 1916, 3 years after the income tax. it has a very long history in this country and it plays a very important role. the thing that most in -- people are not aware of is that inheritances and gifts are not otherwise subject to the income tax system. earned $50,000 or

$30,000, they have to pay taxes on that. if somebody inherits $30 million or even $30 billion, they don't have to pay any income tax on that at all. they don't even have to reported to the government. the only tax we have on that transfer of wealth is the estate and gift tax. host: here are some of the issues we will be talking about for the last 45 minutes when it comes to wealth transfers and the implications thereof with the state tax best the estate tax and the gift tax. penalties fore tax violations. you can join the conversation this morning. if you're in the eastern or central time zone, (202) 748-8000. if you're in the mountain or pacific, (202) 748-8001. you said earlier that the gift backstop to the

estate tax, can you walk us through how that works? guest: if you think about it, congress enacted and estate -- and estate tax. tax, then an estate taxpayers would best good -- take it and completely avoid the estate tax before death. congress enacted the gift tax as a way of closing that loophole. we revamped the system and it became a unified system. it is a single tax that applies to people so that they can use up their exemption amount during life or at death. it is all subject to taxes to the same degree. host: how are those exemptions calculated? guest: the exemption today is $11.2 million. total exception. in addition, you can give tax breaks, $15,000 to as many people as you want. excluded.so

it is a huge opportunity for people to transfer wealth and not have to reported to the government. host: were you surprised when you read this new york times story about some of the different avenues of wealth transfer that fred trump used to move money to his children? surprised about is that there is an interesting mix of things. some of them are things that are common. discounts, others look to be more clearly fraud. they werelike indirect gifts that should have been reported as such. for example, the building supply. if you pay more than something is worth and your purpose is to transmit wealth in a donate of way, that is an indirect gift. it should have been reported as such.

host: what about the value of the estate at the end of fred trump's life and how those lines were calculated? can you talk about that process and how often that is used by the wealthiest of americans? guest: violation is one of the biggest issues that comes up in the estate gift tax -- valuation is one of the biggest issues that comes up in the estate gift tax system. it is very subjective. once you're talking about something like publicly traded stock, which has a recognized market value, it is difficult to set a clear value. what estate planners do due to make this issue more complex is that they take an interest that might have -- an interest in a family business, let's say it is worth $10 million. then they do things to diminish the value of that interest.

for example, if you break it up , a 30%30% interest interest and a 40% interest, each of those interests is worth less than its amount of share, because 30% of a $10 billion business, -- $10 million business, no one would ever pay $3 million because you have a minority account. thetransfer -- transmit smaller interest and each of the smaller pieces has diminished value for gift tax purposes. then they arrive magically on the other side with their full value. , it is one of the common will call them tricks, but tricks of the trade of the state planners. you diminish the value of property. host: how to stay and federal regulators look at the sort of transactions and how do they

determine what the right value is of a property? do they have people who look at these transactions? guest: they need and army of appraisers to do that. if you think about the number of gift transactions and you look at the extreme underfunding of the irs that has gone on, then you see why we have a real problem. the number of audits has gone down. that is because there has been a starving of the irs so that it makes it much more difficult for them to do their job. host: ray madoff is a professor at boston college, taking your questions this morning as we talk about well transfer. -- wealth transfer. tim is in wisconsin, go ahead. caller: good morning. to me, this whole thing boils down to who takes control. if the democrats take control of the house, we are going to

subpoena donald trump's tax records. i believe he is as crooked as a snake and his taxes will bear that out. i would like to have your opinion. host: professor merrill? -- madoff? guest: i think there is definitely a lot of interest on behalf of the democrats in looking at donald trump's taxes. the fact that they have not been made available to the public is extremely unusual. it is unusual to not have a presence taxes available. it will be interesting to see what happens with the midterms. host: what about the larger issue of what happens with the estate tax in the gift tax? we went through a large tax overhaul in this past congress. where the estate tax and gift tax changed during that overhaul and are there plans to change it further? guest: yes.

over the last overhaul, the exemption amount was increased over $11 million to million. per person. that was a big increase that occurred. happens in the future, it is hard to say. i would say that the problem is that the -- there has been a big marketing effort against the estate tax. that marketing effort has made both democrats and republicans reluctant to push for a strong estate tax. disinformationa campaign about the estate tax. host: in what? explains some of the disinformation. guest: the idea that the estate tax is a double tax or hurts family farms and businesses. or it is a deft expert all of those three things are false. it is a tax that is imposed on

the recipients of property. it is the only tax that is imposed on them. it is not a double tax, it is a single tax. in terms of family funds and businesses -- farms and businesses, we have a rule that tries to protect emily farms and businesses. congress could easily expand that role and say it has a cap that is unreasonably low. unlimited cap on that. -- the superthy wealthy and mega love the families, the billionaires are using family farms and businesses as a decoy to say these are you -- who you have to they are trying to save their own buildings from being subject to tax. it started as a part of this campaign, 30 years ago, the morris family got together with wealthy families and

decided they wanted to get rid of the estate tax. toy did a marketing campaign undermine the estate tax. that is where the phrase death tax came from. the democrats never came up with a marketing response. that was the language that took hold. host: in vermont, good morning. caller: thank you for having me on. where --rsonally seen fors doing insurance work family farms for many years and small businesses, where we would and theower estate tax value of the farm was not great. the main income was not great. if you look at the value of the capital assets of the farm, from an irs perspective, it was high

and the tax was due in nine months. if they own a tax, the only way you could cover it was through the insurance. the insurance industry is in having estate taxes in place because it creates a market for them. in the farms where they did not do the planning and where the small business to the farm was , the familyusiness had been raised thinking they could have the farm for tomorrow's generations were put out of business because they did not have the money to pay the tax. they had to do a force firesale. everything went well, the other one did not. they were strapped for money. and hampered the team salaries for many years.

proper planning is a good tool. properly sizable estate tax is good for small businesses. mega sizedth the estates, they are playing around it one way or the other. attorneysienced tax can give them the advice. setting this limit is a question -- and for the professionals in this business. essentially find loopholes. 11 million for small businesses and farms -- host: go ahead. guest: i agree that the insurance has a great interest in having the estate tax. that is because the insurance industry has been able to carve

out a way that people can buy insurance and avoid the state taxes. as a potential loophole that should be close. they are extremely -- the fact they have that is a sign of how powerful the insurance lobby is. the family farms having to sell because it is due in nine months, they have provisions that the government provides extremely low interest loans. the tax for a small business can be paid over 15 years. it does not have to be paid. i wonder how many stories there are. i know they were interested in finding actual stories of it. that the republicans were pushing these. they had a hard time finding a story about businesses that had to be sold. perhaps people were not well informed or educated about the fact that this system was in place for long-term payment. but, i have not heard -- i have heard that there were not many

stories. in any event, i think it should be a just by having an exemption for family farms. a targeting exemption. we like the idea of people being able to carry on a family farm business. and we easily could allow for that. that is a separate question from whether or not we should have an estate tax. or even the size of the exception. secretary ray madoff is with us until the in of our program at 10:00 today, taking your calls. if you're in the east and or central time zone, [indiscernible] --(202) 748-8000. work one are doing whether the terrible -- charitable sector is producing what we want. that is because they play an important role on our society.

we rely, unlike many european countries, we rely on nonprofits to do things like education, scientific research and health care. and social safety. in order to fund these organizations, we need to have donations. the question is whether our roles are incentivizing donations and whether or not they're getting to these organizations. the concern is that these rules are allowing the accumulation of and they are not doing enough to get other organizations into the nonprofit . philanthropy -- month philanthropy is an organization that looks to see whether they are a compass and put we want to accomplish. -- they are a competent but we want to accomplish. caller: what are the tax rates

for gift tax at the federal level and at the state. and a little bit of history of those, is a 10%? high,he rate gets too people are willing to spend a lot of money on lawyers to hide the money. could your speaker discussed that topic? guest: the estate tax and gift tax are at a rate of 40%. in terms of state, different -- many states have no estate tax. it is to be the case that states were able to have their own estate tax and it did not affect someone's overall liability because there was a credit for federal tax purses. best purposes. 2001 actged in the which was bad for the states because it affected their ability to raise revenue.

since the purpose of the tax was not just to raise revenue but to largery to break up amounts of inherited wealth, taxes have historically been pretty high. , as the reporter -- theyck, there were were 55% back then. in the 70%. we have seen some historically high rates. in the earlier is, they were very low rates. they gradually went up. they have gradually come down. they are at 40% now. doesn't make any difference for the estate tax whether you lead your estate to a family member or a friend that you want to leave your estate to? taxt: you can do retransfer's to your spouse and to charity. other than that, everything else

is subject to it. host: in south carolina, good morning. caller: i like to make a comment on -- i don't think there should be anything as an estate tax. when i die, i leave it to my children, they are going to have to pay taxes on what they earn. there should not be a separate tax. it is a crooked tax. i worked all my life in pay taxes and you're going to try to find a way to take even more of it as i died and left it to my child. that is not right. i do have a comment as far as president jumps -- tax returns, he does not have to show them. the obamas and the clintons,

none of them have a law license anymore. professor madoff, do you want to address the double tax issue? guest: i think there is two waste of adjusting it. one is you have to recognize that for most people who are subject to the tax, the type of wealth that they have has never been subject to tax. that is because the type of wealth that the super wealthy have, this only applies to people have $11 million -- people who have $11 million or more, they do not generally if that help through -- get that wealth through wages. they are subject to individual income tax. social security taxes and all of that. most of the wealth that you see being passed on is actually capital appreciation, which is never been subject to tax in the the next generation.

the other issue with the double taxation is the idea that it is itject to tax in one person, can never be subject to tax and other person. that is not true at all. if somebody is a mechanic with their earnings, the mechanic and not say i don't have to pay income taxes on this because my customer already paid income taxes on it. taxes are imposed on the recipient of wealth. so, it is not double taxation because we are talking about a new taxpayer who is acquired wealth. i understand that we want to allow people to pass on a certain amount of wealth to their children and grandchildren. maybe we want to encourage that to our tax system. we have lots of exemptions to provide for that. the question is how big should

those exemptions be? should they be $1 million? $5 million? these are very big numbers. host: robert in pennsylvania is next. lawyer, the retired state inherent tax is unfair. it is mostly for the extreme wealthy. i'm not an extremely wealthy person but i am going to be under $10 million per all that i have earned to acquired this wealth -- acquire this wealth is not going to be under the capital gains. -- you your misleading are misleading. -- know what side

of the fence, issue more conservative or more liberal when it comes to taxes? host: what is your response to robert? said that he has less than $10 million, he would not be subject to the estate tax. that is what he said. guest: he would not be subject to the estate tax. so, i think, again, i think that that is what he said. -- i don't know what else to add. host: when it comes to the estate tax and the law, what are if theal ramifications iris looks through and sees red flags that you did not report your estate correctly, what are the penalties? are they civil or criminal

penalties? guest: they can be subject to civil and criminal penalties yet some not reporting seems to be going on. a nonreporting of gifts, the statute of limitations does not run on those if they have never been reported. it looks like what happened in the trunk case is that, and what often happens is that you can -- doney00 per do every year. maximize their $15,000 by transferring property every year. if they transfer something other than cash or economically traded stock, it is difficult to know what that guy you is and if people are significantly

undervaluing it, they transfer something that is really worth $150,000 in their pertaining it is worth $15,000 and they never reported, that is a nonreporting of a -- and should have been reported. host: the new york times story brings up fred trump and the children not be playing -- repaying those loans. is there a penalty for not repaying those loans if the person who made the loans does not want them to be repaid. guest: there is no penalty. but for gift tax perk this is, -- gift tax purposes, that alone should have been included in french alps estate when he died or he gave it when he was alive, that should be treated as a taxable gift. host: about 20 minutes left with professor ray madoff, in el paso texas, good morning.

caller: i want to comment on a that wrote about donald trump and his father's taxes. the new york times pitches off of donald trump, it has been going on since june of 2015 when donald trump announced he was running and it is been nonstop to make donald trump look bad. and theeverything else kavanaugh fiasco, it is so obvious that feinstein and all they were doing, it is funny how ford has disappeared. no one knows where she is anymore. she is off of the scene. week,ual accusers -- that when they were talking about the

extra week to investigate the an article comes out about donald trump's taxes. host: this is the front page of the new york times from october 3, professor madoff, take us through your reaction. guest: the article, as your first guest talked about outlined a number of things. one was how donald trump received much more from his father than he had said. he is consistently told the public that the only thing he received from his father was $1 million. this story showed he received much, much more than that, beginning from the age of three. that story that he was given $1 million and had to repay it turned out to be totally false. i think that is not just a hit job. that is something that directly

goes to things donald trump was saying about himself that turned out to be false. the other thing is that stories of tax fraud, these are serious charges. that in anyme normal time, we would be concerned about our president engaging in signing fraudulent returns, which is essentially what is being intimated by the story. host: francis is waiting in new york, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a retired cpa. target.st is on we have an honors system in the united states. return,signed our tax there are penalties for perjury. we have laws in the united states, unfortunately, our laws are not monitored. in the old days, when you had an

attorneyx return, an would be represented by the irs and review it. the thresholds were very low at that time and it was not cost-effective for the government. now, the government has $22 -- million dollars for exceptions for husband and wife. going tomagine who is be ordering these tax returns. they are going to be attorneys. unfair is a tax system in the united states? host: professor madoff? guest: i think our tax system, unfortunately, our current taxes them is very unfair. it is unfair because we put all of the tax burdens on wage earners. the dominant share on wage

earners. we don't take any sufficient taxes on things like inherited wealth and people who acquired their wealth through investing in businesses and things like that. i think our tax system is not appropriately addressing the nature of our country, where we have extreme wealth inequality with a very small percentage of -- country controlling cute huge amounts of the country's wealth. there are no ways of taxing that wealth. that is one of the big problems with fairness. i agree with the caller that it that isnor system signed by penalties of perjury and it is important that people comply with it. that the higher exception amounts means that you're going to have more sophisticated cases. however, i wonder whether you're

going to have people who have been working on the private side as estate planners, i don't see many others people moving over to the irs because one is a high-paying paying job and one is a low-paying job. you'll see that transition often. host: speaking of the irs, can you talk about the impact of the iris been the backs up to this honor system and the impact the irs has had in reviewing a complicated system. total numbers of irs employees are over 114,000, back in 1995. they have dropped to 82,000 in 2015. today, it is below 80,000. it is in the high 70 thousands, in terms of employees at the irs. guest: that is 20 years. think about what has happened in 20 years, in terms of the

population. has the population shrunk by 20%? no. 20%?e gdp shrunk by no. everything about the country is bigger and more complex. we should be having more agents and not fewer agents. host: in virginia, good morning. caller: i am an executive of an estate in fairfax. they told me what was happening in dallas, that i would pay the taxes. i have to report and i have to do a financial report and turn that into them. aforgot that i had put out stock. i had to redo it and pay them money. i had to pay the money up front when i went in there. 10% of whatever i thought the estate was. then i had to pay them $30 and filed this report. $30.kept the by next year, i have to report every penny that i spend out of

that estate. i have to either type something up, they haven't accounted that goes through it. that is the difference between a trust any wheel? go ahead. guest: it sounds like what you are talking about, if i understand correctly, is the reporting that has to be done about what the acids were in the estate. is -- when someone is essential, that through the probate court. they see the executor and have to marshal the assets, pay the debt and distribute the assets to beneficiaries named under the will. and fund thee trust during life and you do not

have to go through probate at death. host: seattle washington is next -- seattle, washington is next, judy. disagreemente a with who owns the wealth. -- what i amis hearing is they wanted to distribute money. if i take my money and i invested in a business, i am going to mismanage my business and lose my money, and in that case, there is nobody who is going to swoop in and say we are sorry, you took a risk and you lost it. if i manage my business well and i make money, i am going to employ people who are going to pay income taxes. i'm going to buy goods and products, which is going to redistribute my wealth through the system that works.

if i'm really successful, i am going to have a whole lot of money. a whole lot of employees. a whole lot of investments in other businesses, companies, helping them to grow and employing more people. this is the way that redistribution of wealth is intended to work. it is the only way that actually does work. when you just take the money from the people who manage it well and discredit, is not going government, they to help people in poverty. people in poverty get 25 of those dollars. with -- thisoes

with it and this person does that with it. if you leave it in the hands of people who can manage it well, they will manage it well. money, i should be able to give it to whomever i want, whenever i want. the government has no right of possession on that money. this is just an inefficient, stupid, extremely incompetent. it is a sin. you are more successful than i am. you are smarter. you have better -- you work harder at your work. managed to achieve what i did not. or, you got lucky. you inherited it. in that case, what is going to happen is that if you're not good at managing money, if you

misuse the resources, you will lose it. got the point. ray madoff, but is your response? guest: in order to run the country, we need to generate the certain amount of tax revenue, what ever that amount is. even if people want a small government, they agree we need a certain a not of my to run the government. let's say we need through trillion.llars, -- $3 do we put it entirely on wage earners? the tax is imposed on people who have jobs. people who have employment benefits. people who win the lottery. barterwho are engaged in exchanges. all of those people have to pay taxes. why do we say that someone who inherits money or my parents,

grandparents, great-grandparents, those of the people we are going to say they pay no taxes. they don't have to contribute at all. to me, that does not make any logical sense. host: in baltimore maryland, time for a few more calls, go ahead. caller: the previous caller from the media said that is doing a hit job on trump, i could not disagree more strongly. is that impeachment would probably be too good for him. his own party finally wakes up to what a despicable president trump has turned out to be. and he does i get renominated by his own party. let's stick to estate and

tax laws. a lot of callers on that topic. pat in miami florida -- miami, florida, good morning. people, theeems tax seemf the estate to have bought into this mistaken concept. someone who has a chelated enough wealth that they would be subject to the estate tax, if assets, oneose minute before passing, they would be subject to the capital gains tax. if they are not sold before they pass, they have the current $22 million exemption. it is not a tax, it is almost a death benefit because it is being sold again. one minute before or 30 seconds before. they would be subject to the capital gains tax. without it, they get the benefit

from a state tax exception. no entrepreneur does not start a business because they think if i am successful, my heirs are going to have to pay experts and tax. --x percent in tax. whether it is a pizza shop or microsoft, no entrepreneur. i'm not going to do that because of the taxes i might pay. whether it is a state tax or an income tax. taxes butpay more they will have more left over. guest: absolutely. to deathall reports refers to is an externally benefit. the washing out and capital gains, you never have to pay tax, that is something that is provided in death that is not provided anywhere.

the fact that they knew and estate planning scheme that you can read about in the paper, there are places where people are giving property to their parents or higher of generation with the hope that when they die, they will pass it back down. to wash out your capital gains. that is something that is no justification for it in the system. it should not be there. host: are there currently pieces of legislation working their way through congress right now on keeping people from trying to get around the estate tax. could there be new changes? guest: this is exactly the problem in this area. assault on the estate tax has been so on the present -- omnipresent and effective that you do not see any loophole closing going on. you cannot have a tax exemption be effective if you do not have

a congress trying to counteract the estate planners. that is how it works. -- tax plans forth is push the limit, congress ds.pon congress has not been responding and that is why we are in the mess that we are in. it is hardly doing the job we needed to do. host: in missouri, ron is next. caller: we have a problem between marxist capitalism and the capitalist theory. can avoid any kind of taxes. when they die, they don't own anything. not want aners did income tax. in 1917, they passed the 15th

the same timeund the ball civic revolution was going on in russia. host: professor madoff? guest: i would only ask the caller, how are we going to raise the revenue that we need for the country to do the things that we wanted to do? regardless of whether you want the government to be big or small, everybody wants there to be an army. there are things that we need the government to do. he question is how are we going to -- we could do a head tax. say every single individual has to pay a certain amount. that is going to be extremely unfair and impose a lot of burdens on people who are going to be unable to pay. we have to come up with the interim tax -- income tax. mark in washington, d.c., good morning. caller: i had a quick question

regarding the policy issue, with regards to restrain. t. system, if you have a document or any transfer of property, it'd was allowed to put restraints on alienation, such that individuals could keep property in their family for years. we brought over some of that property law and decided we did not want it to be involved in the transfer of property. i'm looking at the policy issue with regards to the estate tax, looking at the consequences of -- the unintended consequences of allowing individuals to keep masses of wealth within their family as the country progresses throughout hundreds of years. i think some of the opponents of the state tax a be shortsighted in this. >> we have a minute left. founders were very concerned about dead hand control and massive

accumulations of wealth. they saw the country differently. they saw it as one where everybody participated. we do not have an aristocratic class. that is why jefferson said the world belongs to the living, not the dead. the dead have no control over it. they were concerned with this issue. you can follow her on twitter. thank you for your time. we appreciate it. that is going to do it for the washington journal today. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4 a.m. pacific -- 4:00 a.m. pacific. to the brookings institution, hosting a conversation about the conflict in yemen and humanitarian issues there. the war in yemen is now in its fourth year. live coverage begins now.

>> here at the brookings institution for discussion on yemen. a live coverage later today will include president trump speaking about prescription drug pricing. is tweeting i look forward to hearing from the president later today on the administration's efforts to address the high cost of prescription drugs. the president will be at hhs this afternoon. we will have it here on c-span. >>