at 830 a.m., our guest has written a book about automation and the impact on work in the u.s.. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning on this monday, december 24. on this day before christmas, it is day three of the federal government shutdown. some of the official voices in washington say this could drag on for a while. into the new year and into the new congress. we thought we would take more calls on the federal government shutdown and the impact you may be anticipating. some of the policies and politics involved. if you support the federal

government shutdown, call. if you oppose it -- we have a separate line for federal workers. 202-748-8002. and you can weigh in on social media this morning. cspanwj is our twitter handle and you can post a comment on facebook.com/cspan. trump's new chief of staff warns of shutdown dragging on. mick mulvaney said, "this is what washington looks like when you have a president that refuses to get along." here is what he had to say yesterday. >> i met with the vice president and mr. schumer as your story indicated to talk about where we were in the discussions.

given a counter offer to mr. schumer late yesterday afternoon. and immediately after, the senate went into recess until at least thursday. i don't think things are going to move very quickly for the next couple of days. >> are we talking a week? until the new congress comes in? shutdownvernment is today and tomorrow for a federal holiday anyway. wednesday is really the first day that this kicks in. the paychecks will go out on the 28th. no one is working without getting paid. impacted hisperiod january 11. it is possible to shutdown will go beyond the 28th and into the new congress. times makesshington this the lead item.

trump capitulates on funds, but not on fence. trump has offered to come down on the demand, that he would has less moneyt and put limits on the type of offense that can be constructed. between the $1.3 million and the $5 billion. it must be spent on a steal slatted fence that would rule out any of the concrete prototypes the president tested last year. the times writes the willingness to accept less money may not be as important as the signal that he will accept fencing instead of something called a wall. thehided those that equated two and said only a wall would work. despite the movement, there was a sense in washington that the partial government shutdown could extend for some time,

though it was not clear how much of it could be felt. they point out much of the government would be funded because congress funded defense through december. 100 20,000 employees are required to show up as essential 120,000 leaving -- employees are required to show up as essential workers, leaving 380,000 or about 18% on furlough. with the shutdown hitting on a , workers would feel the effects until wednesday. one brief quote here. it is so depressing, says audrey .urray both are contract jobs that put her at a greater risk of not getting back pay. my mortgage is due on the first

and nobody should be going through this. jim as wecall is from continue the conversation on the federal government shutdown. what are your thoughts? i support what the president is doing. the democrats, we have them on tape all the time saying that we have to secure our borders and we have to secure our wall. and that no one should be coming here illegally. something, 5 for billion. i mean, it is all about politics. thate need to understand what is happening in west virginia and in the state of west virginia, the majority of counties are behind on jail

bills. they don't have funds to operate in a regular order. that doesn't include schools. raised -- people are worried about we don't have enough foster parents. thatlk to somebody -- if we build a wall, it will cut down the drug flow 30%. it impacts the legal system, the rehabilitation system, the school system, the entire thing.

but here we have people, their are that theyoses don't want to shut off the influx. it is along the lines of having too many people in a boat. we are trying to do this through a regular process. regular immigration goes through the process, but not for mass illegal immigration. host: we want to hear from randy now who opposes the shutdown. what are your thoughts? caller: i would like to start by thanking you and all the men and women that are working today to .ring the program we wish you a merry christmas. i think the shutdown is pretty shortsighted. we are looking at a wall. we have ports of entry abuse.

it is overstated, i guess is how i'm supposed to put it. we have a northern canadian border that is porous. -- i'mfter just a wall for border security. but put out $100 billion so we can do it right. it seems like me locking my front door, opening all the other doors and windows in the house, and walking through the neighborhood and bragging i will never get robbed. figure ofput out a $100 billion. quite a figure. what would that be used on? caller: some kind of enforcement on visas. rify so you can buy a machine for every employee in this country so you don't have to worry about hiring illegals.

$5 billion, i agree in the scheme of things, it is nothing. probably not enough money. it is a wild guess. you will have to start at $100 billion. spending $7 million on 1400 students. it ends up costing a lot more than you think if you are going to do it right. host: fleetwood, pa. kenneth on the line who supports the shutdown. our last caller suggested a price tag of $100 billion to do this right. caller: he may be right, but it is $164 billion that cost us in immigration right now. i do support president trump simply because that is what he campaigned on and that is what

63 million other people voted on. i think the democrats are the most hypocritical part of this whole discussion. nancy pelosi, and democrats years ago saying that -- including president obama. for them to turn around against the president is a pure resistance movement that they have been doing since day one. i don't care if the shutdown goes on until valentine's day. he has to stand his ground. it the american people are behind him. there is a gofundme where the funds will go towards this. more people will be willing to donate. is the number one thing threatening our country's democracy. the tipimmigration is of that spirit and we have to fight back.

spear and we have to fight back. host: many calls coming in. on social media, jim writes, do you want a wall? and use theax cuts dollars to pay for your stupid wall that a majority of americans don't want. just another republican stunt playing to a minority base. will sense of bring money from pay for the wall? we need a wall to keep rapists and murderers out. come the legal way and we will be glad to have you. some facilities are closed or partially closed. here is a look at the metro section of the washington post. most national parks will stay open sans restrooms.

will staynal parks open but there may not be anyone there to answer questions and the restrooms will likely be closed. here is a photo in the post. being able to visit the u.s. botanic gardens which has been funded through the year despite the shutdown. shot from mount rainier in washington. -- rainier and other sites. says the gates are not open until the federal government shutdown is resolved. is a photo of the national christmas tree in washington, d.c. the tree was closed to the public. , butan still see the tree you can't go near the tree which folks like to do.

have more calls on the federal government shutdown, day three. willie is on the line now. i agree with the wall being built and the shutdown. i agree with most everything trump is doing. what i think and what really they mean, draining the swamp. what does it mean? host: what does it mean to you? it sounds like reducing the amount of people working in government. host: that is a good thing or a bad thing? caller: it is a good thing. i think we have way too many people working in the government. host: in any particular area? what would be essential versus nonessential? caller: there's too much control

over everything that individuals do. we have to have law enforcement and the government, i understand that. i don't know. there are just too many people we are paying to sit around in an office someplace. i'm talking about mostly white-collar people in government. yeah. do you have an idea of what that means? host: let's see what some of our other colors mean about that comment -- callers mean about that comment. is in waddington, new york. where is that located? caller: way up north.

i am totally against this shutdown. and i am totally against the wall. let me ask you to turn the sound down and go ahead with the rest of your comment. we are getting a little bit of feedback. caller: how is that? host: we can still hear it. we are waiting to hear again from carroll. go ahead and try. i am totally against the wall and i am totally against the shutdown. host: why? swamp, and draining the i think they are talking about -- host: we will let you go. we did get the point and it is a little bit hard to hear each

other. they are from las vegas. -- j.r. from las vegas. what do you do for the government? caller: i work at a va hospital. i'm not affected at all. no changes. host: what are your thoughts about all this? caller: i think it is a reality check that we hired pinocchio in the white house. he said new mexico will pay for it. they ought to remind him of that. pinocchio in the white house and this will we do not need. millionaires and billionaires like him and other people, they don't have a clue about the

people's lives they are hurting. host: frank is calling from poughkeepsie in new york. this shutdown is a joke. they are talking about drugs and illegals coming through here. during the 80's and the 90's was the crack epidemic going on, nobody mentioned anything about a wall. it was a free-for-all. it's ok. it was fine. wall.ey want to build a it is a typical hypocrite. the gop says everything is fine and dandy when it is hurting other people. when it is going to their rich pockets and it will hit them, people talk about build a wall.

tell you what. build a wall around yourselves so we can observe the crazy people that think that way. host: this is day three of the federal government shutdown. in thes does come back session tomorrow. speaking, they will have a session, a pro forma session. it means no business is expected. we will be watching and we expect a quick gavel in and out. we will see if anything is said or done. but the next day we are looking at in terms of a potential when wes thursday expect both bodies will have a regular session. thate not quite sure what means, but so far, there is no legislation on the floor and we will see if talks are going to continue this week.

but this could go on into the new year. the new york times has this front page, shutdown fury in washington. instead of saturday with christmas approaching, the senate simply adjourned, choosing to leave the political battlefield unoccupied until thursday afternoon. governmente partial shutdown entered the second day on sunday. wall.ute over the border washington found itself mustering little more than a collective shrug bringing in the new year with the government shuddered. the decision to lay down political cudgels is all the more striking when compared with the modern playbook. pinning blame on the other side

to get your way. we have christopher on the line now. good morning. caller: i support the partial shutdown. host: how come? back, theoking longest shutdown we had in 1995, i think. 1996. even that one had an impact on the next presidential election. i think this one probably will, too. good not really looking for donald trump. i don't know. he kind of ask like he has to have his way. his way or the highway.

maybe we can get someone else in there. hopefully. currentder the circumstances, any deal will almost certainly not be voted on until thursday when the senate is sent -- set to reconvene. will simplynt remain shuttered until january 3 when democrats take over the house and most likely elect nancy pelosi to speaker. she could use her majority to approve a measure to fund the government without additional allegations for a wall and would shift pressure to mitch and the majority leader that can take up the house bill over the president's objections or dig in and fight. it may explain why mr. mcconnell has been uncharacteristically restrained toward democrats on recent days -- in recent days. talks that matter are the ones

between the white house and senate democrats. i'm pulling for them, he added. jeff merkley spoke yesterday, the senator, a democrat from oregon. it is what he had to say about the shutdown. think the president is determined to carry this forward until the democratic congress comes in. it's not about border security. he is sitting on over $1 billion. 94% of what we sent him last year he hasn't bothered to spend. you're not spending nine out of $10 on an issue, you don't care about it that much. this is politics, not policy. is something the president campaigned on and something the house voted to approve funding for. half of the senate is willing to support it. why are the democrats so there will be nothing for a border wall?

why not given a little bit on that? >> we are willing to fund border security. the people want to spend money in a smart way. billion is 600,000 children attending head start. it is meals for seniors. --spend it on a four century fourth century strategy is not something we will do. >> democrats will not give any funding for a border wall? >> that is correct. none. host: jeff merkel on one of the sunday shows yesterday. continue to take calls on day three of the government shutdown. no resolution in sight. they have a picture here of a woman and her daughter. they closed the visitor center at joshua tree national park in california. people were free to roam the

trails at no charge. impasse into 2019? it is very possible. they have a park ranger blocking the road at rocky mountain national park. unplowedwas left because of a partial government shutdown. florida, joe, tell us why. happy holidays for you. thank you for working christmas eve. because the shutdown the senators are getting paid during the shutdown? host: our understanding is that they will continue to get paid. if they were not getting paid, i would be for a shutdown. host: some members are saying

that they shouldn't get paid. maybe the listeners can hold their representatives accountable and make them go to work institute of pretending they are doing something about the government shutdown. another caller said they wanted the shutdown to continue until valentine's day. understand that there are people .hat depend on their paychecks it doesn't sound good for people to be unemployed during the holidays. tomorrow is christmas. ended its people put their heads together and whether it islem border security, immigration, or whatever. host: thanks for calling. congress has worked hard this session, according to james.

time for them to head home and enjoy the holiday with their family. the break should give them a fresh perspective. .e have david on the line caller: the shutdown is more than just the wall. they didn't get the budget done by 30 september like they should have done. 60% arekeep saying overstaying their visas. guess what? when these people are caught and a visad, they can't get again if the system is working. and to reenter the united they have -- the wall will slow them down from coming back across the border. and the reentry points, they will be alerted that they can't

reenter. deportedeople that got , they can't come back in. they keep using that excuse that they overstay their visas. back in.t come that is why the wall will prevent that. there is more than just overstaying your visa. don't use that excuse. host: david mentioning immigration and other colors as well. the wall street journal writes butt the phony shutdown they speak more broadly about immigration. createt solution is to more ways to work legally. there are plenty of unfilled jobs for them and a guest worker program will have them moving back and forth based on employer needs while reducing gangs and

smuggler coyotes to exploit vulnerable migrants. if that is too politically ambitious, swap the money for border security or a wall to legalize dreamer illegals that are brought to the uss children. and sides could take credit claim a policy victory. but even that seems to be beyond the political imagination of mr. trump, nancy pelosi, and chuck schumer. the wall street journal editorial board calls it a phony shutdown war. we have john on the line. thank you for getting up early for us. you oppose the shutdown. tell us why? nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, and donald trump are all billionaires. -- $30,000 in taxes.

i don't see my money going to good use. everybody.tmas to why don't they pay for the wall themselves? host: maybe counties and states could benefit from national parks instead of democrats playing politics with it. what happens in a partial government shutdown? they remind us what is open and closed. social security checks and troops will remain. the u.s. postal service delivering packages. it is an independent agency and won't be affected. passport services will also continue. essential government agency including the fbi, border patrol, the coast guard will remain open.

tsa will still staff airport checkpoints. we will tell you more about what is open and closed as we go on. on this30 minutes left portion of washington journal on december 24. day three of the government shutdown. this could go to the new year and into the new congress. karyn from hazel, north carolina. 90% of the fentanyl and heroine is coming across the southern border. last year, 70,000 young americans died of fentanyl and heroine overdose. mostly young white people. what the democrats are participating in is a slow genocide of white people. i can't believe they are throwing the descendents futures away with both hands for the

futures of descendents of other continents. we are at the point where something is going to have to happen because this cannot continue. host: david, you oppose the shutdown. caller: thank you for taking my call. i beg to differ with donald trump in many cases. the economy was better under the democrat administration. i think the economy is getting worse and worse. party moreged his than four times. ,nd before he was a republican he always follows that interest and benefits. it would be good for america if he were to resign and go to prison. he must be sentenced a cousin of the stormy daniels case. he shows he's not a good person

for this position. thank you. host: a lot of folks from california this morning supporting the shutdown. go ahead. caller: i am on disability related to the v.a. i get medical treatment. the treasury department makes payments to me and they don't know if they will make a payment on the money side. is there any word on that? kind of position does that put you in in the immediate ? can you move on for a while? until the end of the year. that's about it. medical treatment, all i want is -- will it pay for my

apartment? no. if i would like to find out you can find out, are the veterans that have service-connected disabilities, will they get paid? it is to the treasury department and they are one of the seven agencies that are off right now. host: we will see what we can find out. there is plenty of other news this morning on the day before christmas. if you did not see the , i am pleasedeet to announce our very talented secretary of defense patrick shanahan will assume the title of secretary of defense in 2019. he has a long list of accomplishments. he will be great. the headlines go this way. -- mattisves matus

wholly. wasbruptly announced he removing mattis two months before his planned departure. this brings fresh and stability the pentagon as it manages trump's decision to withdraw. shanahan, they point out, a former boeing executive. in actingop job capacity on january 1. but a senior administration official says trump plans to conduct a wide-ranging search for a permanent replacement. we will see how that plays out. david is in tulsa, oklahoma. caller: good morning. and brett is on the line

from searchlight, nevada. shutdown support the because i have seen border problems. the secretary of homeland has border patrol. they are not saying to build the whole wall across the border. the democrats are listening to people that do this for a living. drones or whatever. but give them a wall if they need one. the democrats should stop playing around with this. they've heard what these people

have to say. they don't want to vote to keep our government going. have to quit fighting him do what is right for the american people. host: jean from benton harbor, michigan. good morning. the wall was promised by mr. trump, that mexico should pay. i believe that is the way it should be. heard thatorning, i the length of the wall would be 1700 miles or something. they will just dig underneath like el chapo did to get out of resin. -- out of prison. if it goes 50 feet down, they will still tunnel through. up a giant stele

fences andteel gates? these people are not stupid. they are doing cocaine deliveries here that the coast guard tries to catch. i think it is a waste of money to build a small. wall.ld this maybe a few more border agents. a fewa group to cover square miles and drones with them. they see the people and they have their humvee, going get them. to the caller that wondered about the disability checks, newsweek wrote this piece as congress and the president teeter on the brink of a shutdown.

that socials is security, medicaid, and medicare payments will not be interrupted. mandatoryprograms are spending and not affected by the federal budget debate. but new programs may experience delays in processing. the u.s. postal service says the checks should arrive on time. the social security administration issued a shutdown contingency plan outlining how it will remain in operation as workers get for load. -- get furloughed. usual.longer lines than expect longer hold times on the phone. veterans, veterans affairs disability checks are expected to go out on time as will survivor benefits.

you can read more at newsweek.com. from jamestown, north carolina. good morning. $5 billion iser: less than one half of one day of spending. now that the democrats are concerned about spending it, that is absurd. this is political because it was the main promise of trump and the democrats want to deny him. spending.ny part of it is purely political. it the democrats need to get off of their political chairs. they did a budget shutdown and said it was the republicans fault because it was

not doing the will of obama. now the shoe is on the other foot. in congresseople are in favor of increasing border security. sure a wall will be practical. more pictures. gripping pictures today from the tsunami. the death toll is 200 now. a man reacting after identifying a relative. officials believe the tsunami was caused by a landslide. most victims were killed by a wave 10 feet high. here is another photo. victims inarch for damaged homes. authorities are also on alert

for any seismic activity. this one caught everyone off guard. one picture in the washington post. many deaths reported. from here inng washington on the shutdown. you oppose it. why? caller: thank you for taking my call. this shutdown is awful. i think there wouldn't be any deal with trump this time. that is the issue. a wall with taxpayer money will not provide a solution to border security. he was to dominate and control. host: so what is the solution?

caller: i think the solution -- [indiscernible] because of this issue, when we search idiot on google, we see his face. and that insult and woman, story me -- stormy daniels, it's awful. spending the weekend digging in on his position and the a's say he accepts a closure . a concern thanof not making good on his central campaign pledge to build a border wall and looking like a fraud. trump spent the weekend digging in behind closed doors meeting with hard-line conservatives.

he could stomach a closure that could drag on well into the new year. and calling from louisiana, ronald, are you there? i think i support our shutdown that we are having because trump has got to do something to force the hand to get people to do what they need these issues from other parts of the country. we are not here to save the world. we are here to try to control the united states and make it safe. people are not looking at what making it safe -- they are looking at other countries and other countries problems. we've always tried to help other are also, but we trying to keep our country under

control. people are not looking at that. they are bringing a bunch of issues. kids in are throwing as they mobs and thugs try to come into the country. host: thank you for calling. we have sharon from dallas, texas. good morning. are you there, sharon? let's try one more time. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i am opposed to the government shutdown. the american people depend on their money and they have to pay their bills. we have a con artist in the white house that doesn't know anything about what he's doing. followers are

just going behind him and everything he says, they believe . it like he is a fantasy. i don't understand. i hope they open the government up. anthony from mills, wyoming. caller: i support the wall. i think it's a great idea. we need secure borders. the idea of secure borders, they are looking like -- it should be a large fence. direct traffic through the gate. that is my opinion and that's all i have to say. host: we mentioned general mattis earlier. the president's reaction. we've touched on syria.

the former security adviser of barack obama writes about the threat of the white house. the decision-making process is more broken than at any time. nothing illustrates this dangerous dysfunction more starkly than president trump's reckless decision to announce the removal of troops from syria and afghanistan. it deals a death blow to effective policymaking. the president could not care less about facts, intelligence, analysts, or the national interest. he does not take seriously the views of his advisers. and abandoning the role of a responsible commander-in-chief, mr. trump undermines national security more than any foreign adversary. no republican is willing to do more than bleat or tweet concerns.

in the meantime, we found this op-ed in the washington post today from keith kellogg, national security advisor to the vice president. we have succeeded in syria, he writes. now it is time to leave. forgottenent has not the defense of our nation or his duty. making sure the defense budget is increased, not cut. he provides the best equipment, training, and fair compensation. he provides wide latitude and full support. taking care of the troops after he -- they have served. that sobering moment when he received a fallen service member at dover air force base. he will never forget to honor our great young men and women in uniform. we are not abandoning the fight.

we are far from it. ourselves toitting what is best for america, our citizens, and the most precious resource we have. advisortional security to the vice president of the united states. three, your post, day rot from texas. caller: i think draining the swamp means getting rid of the politicians that have been there for 20 or 30 years and don't agree with trump. wall because they are going to get in anyway. they are already here. i live in a small town and there townore wetbacks in this than anywhere else. first before they hire americans. host: we will let you go.

what town are you calling from? caller: harmony. i'm in support of the wall. host: tell us why. caller: i believe fences make good neighbors. have fencesors around their residents -- r esidence? if they do, why? that is my point. the air.ie, you're on i'm a veteran and i don't have a dog in this fight. i'm not a republican or democrat. both of them are liars. trump promises this or that. promised whent they put their hand on the bible to uphold the laws and the constitution.

the democrats had all three houses with obama and they could've done something. this to keep using us separated. they need to build a wall, build it for the congress. every time they run for office, they have to -- start putting employers in jail. enforce the law. period. ronnie. go to in support of the shutdown. tell us why. caller: i agree with the you have acause right to come to this country legally. they should go over all these visa stays and send them back. rice, or every obama

traitor, what they had to say about trump. he knows what he's doing. the promises of the american people that voted for him, they can say what they want to say and do what they want to do. they can investigate what they want to investigate. he's not a traitor. why is nobody speaking about collusion anymore? roy, what is the name of your town? caller: question, georgia. georgia.n, i love the shutdown. it is a wake-up for people who are not as politically savvy, like myself. it puts the issues the shutdown is based on right in the face of people who really don't know the issues. it shows the agenda of both

parties, and the struggle between those parties. the shutdown for me us something that puts it in the face of americans and let them understand more correctly what the issues are. host: how do you see this playing out in the days or weeks ahead? caller: it is hard to say. i think it is going to be a temporary struggle. personally, i would love to see the democrats who are holding the small amount they are asking for. this is not about the wall. the wall is a symbol for border security, which i think everybody wants. saw an interview with holman jenkins earlier.

billion, starting border security by supporting something wall.- something like the it is something tangible. as opposed to adding personnel or closing up certain holes. i would love to see the democrats at least gave a little bit. trump is making concessions. he says it will be a fence instead of a wall. which is fine for me. symbol.it is just a i would love to see them approve this. let's go ahead. i think democrats are trying to vilify trump and the trump administration so they can set themselves up. to them because their political agenda is

long-term. they seem to be cohesive. republicans are kind of diffused in terms of what they really want. but so much is politically motivated. i hate to see the gridlock because of that. but this is a country we live in, unfortunately, now. when you see a shutdown like this, more people are woken up to the fact that there is this political struggle. and i would love to see more people become active to try to defuse this struggle. host: thank you for calling. , whatl writes on twitter part don't folks understand that central parts of the government doesn't shutdown? in case of a dire need, our government will always be ready. connected not to much

to the shutdown. tsa agents will sit in the back of planes from now on. critics right that starting on the 28 of this month, december 28, tsa air marshals will sit at the back of the plane instead of the front, a move that has angered representatives of federal law-enforcement law officers association. they point out that they only ride in a small number of planes on randomly assigned flight. critics are concerned that marshals would not be near the top. the trouble begins in the cabin and the closest they may be to a going rogue, less likely the attack will reach the cockpit. this morning, cameron is calling from georgia. go ahead, please. shutdown oppose the because god says to love people.

so why support something that will only be for your own people? in the end of the day, that's what it's for. the democrat and republican -- [indiscernible] the people need to wake up and see that. the main cause in our own -- www.c-span.org -- [indiscernible] that we are avoiding problems like rapists and things like that. how about we stop the problems where it resides? within ourselves? is a supporter of

the shutdown. we are in date three. what are your thoughts? are that theoughts shutdown should have happened. walls in order to fly on airplanes to mystically. airplanes domestically. that is a wall. you go through the tsa. that is a wall. there are walls all over the united states to protect the individual's of this country. you go to canada and when you return, you have to have a visa or passport. that is a wall. any other wall being built

should be built as a deterrent just like everything else. host: thanks, robert. john from tempora who opposes -- from tampa who opposes the wall. caller: donald trump has already added $1.5 trillion to the debt. we don't have $5 billion to add to the debt. people are saying that $5 billion isn't a lot of money. give me a break. we have other things we need to pay for. this will end when the democrats give $1.6 billion. donald trump will say he won. to fix a problem, you have to e-verify. put companies in jail when they hire illegals and this will all stop. host: one last call from

kentucky. what do you say, paul? opinion, the government struggles politically don't need to happen. put it on the ballot and let the nation vote and whatever comes out, let it be. problemsolve the without having this controversy and hatred for each other. letthe media out of it and the people make a one-time vote. and whatever happens, let it be. host: the washington times and others, reporting the government shutdown won't stop norad's santa tracker. they show hundreds of volunteers at the peterson air force base in colorado springs to help answer the phones from kids around the world calling for santa. the program resumes monday for the 63rd year. partiallyment may be

shutdown but it won't stop on tears in christmas hats and military uniforms from taking those calls. the norad santa tracker won't be affected. the 53rd year. call in colorado springs in 1955. they have the serious job of moderating a network for any sign in the u.s.. it started with a phone call from a worried individual about the government shutdown. it will not stop the santa tracker. that story and many others we're finding on this christmas parade thank you for calling. we have two hours left in this program. we will continue our conversation about the future of health care in this country with alex ruoff. it is day 2 of washington journal's weeklong series.

seven days of what we think are some of the most important books of the year. and a half an hour, we will be joined by oren cass. book titled the "once and future workers." we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> christmas day on c-span. at 11:40 5 a.m. eastern, a look back on this year's memorial services for barbara bush, senator john mccain and president george h.w. bush. eastern, the p.m. future of the u.s. military.

at 8:00, former president barack obama, former secretary of state james baker and historian john meacham on the u.s. is role in the world. >> if there is a problem around the world, people do not call moscow, they do not call beijing. they call washington. even our adversaries expect us to solve problems. and expect us to keep things running. >> and at 9:00, a conversation with entrepreneurs on women in corporate america. >> and we know that women's networks tend to look female heavy. men's networks look male heavy. that might be fine when you're in your first position out of school. who do you think wins with the network why -- by the time you get to senior leadership? >> watch christmas day on c-span. >> c-span, where history unfolds elite. in 1979, c-span was created as a

public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered on -- coverage of congress. the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us at the table is out off. a health reporter for bloomberg government. thank you for joining us today. guest: thank you for having us. why don't we start with the affordable care act. what is the condition of the a.c.a.? it is humming along the way it has been. there has been some concern as of late. a legal challenge brought by a series of republicans, challenging the

constitutionality of obamacare came to congress. they ended the individual mandate. texas a couple of weeks ago ruled the long constitutional. however, that ruling -- unconstitutional. however, that ruling does not have an immediate affect. this came at the height of when most people purchased their insurance. there was a lot of fear about confusion. and whether or not that would cause people to stop buying insurance. for the most part, it appears to not have had a major impact. other than leaving a lot of questions up in the air. host: we have been in the middle of an in room on -- enrollment period? guest: we have. host: how is that going? guest: it has been down. over the past two years, it has been down a little bit. administration, -- there has been a lot of

discussion about why that is. the markets have been stable year after year. for a long time, there has been an issue about how stable it is. it is actually pretty resilient. it has proven effective in getting sign-ups and people to cover insurance. there are a lot of groups that back the a.c.a. originally. we will put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our guests. alex ruoff. republicans call (202) 748-8001. democrats call (202) 748-8000. independents call (202) 748-8002 . we look for to your calls. -- we look forward to your calls. 61% of americans are worried about health care premiums.

maybe not a surprising headline but put that into context for us. guest: health care is becoming the costsing part of americans incur. your after your, we are paying more. we are putting more costs onto national consumers. alarming for everyone. employers are having a problem with this. marketers are having a problem with this issue. health care is not getting cheaper at all, in any way. there is a lot of issues behind this. basically, the cost of health care the cost of getting is getting higher every year. this is one of the reasons of obamacare was created in the first place. it is persistent throughout the thing, we are not getting much healthier. the u.s. health care system can do a lot of great things. for the most part, the country, we are paying more and not getting more out of it. that is basically because the

costsives pushed all the for everything up. you are paying more for hospital stays. you are paying more for procedures. that rises the cost of insurance year after year. there is not a-- lot of easy solutions to this problem. know the wayif you congress works but they are not great at complicating problems. thorny issues such as the cost of health care. there is a lot of interesting there is on how to do this. we will see these policy arguments really play out among lawmakers. there is going to be a big divide between people who say "look, the biggest issue is that we have diminishing costs." why don't we have the federal government take over? you will see a push the other way saying -- you will see this push and pull for years to come. exactly about why we pay for it. why is this a bigger and bigger part of the american budget.

it is an issue because wages are not going upgrade your not making more minor so it is harder to afford. let's talk about congress because we know nancy pelosi is likely to become the new speaker. hearing about her agenda and the agenda of the democratic, -- caucus? guest: they will start with a messaging style. they have signaled they are going to vote to intervene in the lawsuit challenging obamacare. there is a lot of conversation about how effective that is going to be. for the most part, it is a signal that they want to show that they are backing the law. the federal government should back the law. this is going to be a big part democrats in the early weeks. that we are here to support obama care. we are here to help your insurance. in the 2018 elections, they touched on the message we are

going to give you insurance and republicans want to take it away. they found that as a winner. they took over the house with that message. they are looking at 2020, thinking that will get them back the senate and the presidency. that is what they are leaning on. particularly with congress, they are going to be picking and choosing and it is going to be hard to find an agreement on what to do. there is a lot of ideas out there. it is going to be hard to see what is gorgeous in the light of day. host: many people have pushed the headline in the washington times. democrats are looking to extend medicare. parties are expecting roadblocks in the senate. take us deeper into that issue of medicare for all. progressive want to push this along. -- progressives want to push this along. it is interesting -- going to be interesting to see how this played out.

lawmakers want to see this flesh out. concrete policy on the table about how they are going to pay for medicare for all. they want to sell it to the american people. there is this idea that democrats in the house, withcularly and maybe some eyes on the presidency want to lay the groundwork in the next few years of showing that it is a practical solution. that a lot of people, representative ro khanna, people who are behind us, they want to prove they can do this. here is how we would get the money together. here is how we would lay out. here is how it would save you money. the idea is to sell us, the american people, with an eye that maybe three or four years down the road, they can u.s.tially upturned the and have the government be the single-payer. that health care would be free to the consumer. we would be paying more in

taxes. this is a big switchover. we are going to sell you this idea that you're paying so much now, the idea of what you would pay in taxes, juncker this risk. -- ship all this cost to the government. it is going to be hard to flesh out. best it is hard to tell they are shifting the tax code. the biggest issue for a lot of people who want to do something bold with health care is what do you do when an employer punch insurance? most people like it. it feels like a good safety net. you are not paying the brunt of the cost, personally. i feel like most of the country is covered that way. those are the people you will have to sell to. people who work for a job that gives them insurance and they feel comfortable with it and like it. -- will have to give them seldom that they are better off under a different system.

host: lots more to get through in this short half-hour period. let's get to our first call. -- is ann't independent in st. helena island. [indiscernible] thomas, go ahead and turn the sound off on your set and we will hear you much better. caller: my name is thomas davis. host: what would you like to say? caller: i would like to say, why not go after those people who are driving up the health care especially?pitals, i went to the hospital, it cost me on was $9,000 to go to the -- almost $9,000 to go to the emergency room and get an mra -- mri in south carolina.

i think that is ridiculous. the government, those people who are driving the costs of health care up, they are lobbying and giving their money to do otherwise. i disagree with obamacare when he says that if they pass a law, and i'm not a republican. if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. i don't believe the president should be made to do anything by the government and call it a law. if you don't want insurance, you just want to die. that should be the rules. thank you -- host: thank you for calling. guest: you actually bring up a good point. the cost of hospital stays, they gobbled more than almost anything. we talk about the cost of drugs, the cost of living -- they go up more than almost anything. we talk about the cost of drugs, the cost of living.

big, hugeis this policy question. that lawmakers in congress, the federal government works on year after year. that is how you get these calls from your control. there is all of these proposals about how to pay the hospitals. how do you get them to understand we are going to pay you to make people healthier. they are grappling with this. it is very difficult. there is a lot of incentives for them to keep charging you because they incur costs more. it is not like it is cheaper to give you services. on your point that people don't want to be healthy, we do incur these costs a lot. there is a lot argument about why not take care -- taking care of the sickest people. they have to take people in. getting too sick is one of the most -- end-of-life care.

it is a lot of cost incurred. there is an interesting study that says it is much easier to keep us healthy, rather than stay in a place where you're getting routine care. it is not the easiest thing to balance her left -- life along with health care. you are touching on a thorny issue. if i had the answer, i would be much wealthier. host: we will get your insight in a moment. letter from barbara in chester, pennsylvania. barbara is a republican. hello. caller: hi. host: good morning. what would you like to say or ask of our guest? is doing ahink trump good job. he got rid of obamacare and is starting to get done. i am a stay-at-home person. i had a stroke. i have had multiple heart attacks. and i have to have people come

to the house all of the time. i can't even go out. host: anything you would like to ask our guest? who specializes in health care. caller: well, what can we do about the fees that we have to pay for medicare? because they keep going up. trump is the first one who got us a raise for years. i can't afford these prescriptions. that reducest things. and i get my prescriptions for free. host: thank you for calling. medicare fees, she is asking about. what are the future of medicare fees? guest: medicare beneficiaries, there is a cost question. there is a perception that it is free health care but it is not. medicare it self was designed

was -- as a supplemental idea. it was not, and particularly, put together as if it was the only insurance you are going to have. it was with this idea that we would all the retirees with pensions that passed out. and this would be a starting block for insurance. that is a simplified system of medicare itself. it is meant to protect the senior population. the fees that people pay is a big question. in particular, a lot of people, they have to get this insurance. this is complicated. -- uld say that year after this year, how to make medicare more affordable. so, you might be on the wrong side of the policy argument in that i don't think that the fees are going to get lower.

the federal government is going the costsingly tackle of general medicare and try to keep it under control. toe of that is going to go fees. this is a common argument for beneficiaries. host: let's hear from the secretary of health and human services talking about what is ahead for health care policy. [video clip] >> we have now down a love the proposals on drug pricing. -- a lot of the proposals on drug pricing. no one believed me when i said that in may. i think they are regretting that they did not pay attention. the president laid it out and we have been watching -- marching through that. read the blueprint. the big shift is going to be, we are going to focus on what alexander talked about. the move of bayou transformation -- transportation and health care.

that hit the road? .> value-based transformation you can put it -- a different baggy into that. here is what you means. the nurses were complaining to me about medicare staffing ratios. i said what is the staffing ratio? the number of nurses that have to be there. we regulate that? yes, we do. "if myt to be saying relative walks out of the hospital, do we have to pay this much?" you have done your job, you have not done your job. we do not micromanage how you do that. -- x amount of money. you figure out what works. keep them out of the hospital. make them healthy and keep them

out of the hospital. here is an amount of money, if you can do it for less, great. if it costs you more, you are at risk. that is by you. it changes the pricing dynamics and the value dynamics. >> what is one more idea that you have up your sleeve for 2019? >> the biggest thing that we are going to be launching are going to be these demonstrations at the center for medicare and medicaid innovations. to launch several ships out into the water, testing new models of how we pay in medicare or services that go from paying for procedures to paying for outcomes. the more risk you are willing to assume, the less we are going to be micromanaging how you achieve that. laying out three big themes. what are you hearing? likelihood of their

top 30's moving? -- top priorities moving? guest: they are talking about value-based health care and shipping these models so that hospitals take more risk. that is well agreed upon on policymakers -- by policymakers and lawmakers. part of it is complicated. if you are that, your eyes roll over a little bit. saying it makes people healthier. payments for making people healthier. this is a big agreement. most policymakers in congress are saying we should do this. we should tackle this. interesting -- and insisting part of this is that part of this is layered in these partisan disagreements about the insurance market and how students are going to go. how they should oversee a lot of these programs, which, he does not mention it, but they were created by obamacare.

there is a big question of how they are going to send a lot of this out. there is going to be a breakdown. they have said we want to lower the insurance premium costs. they want to expand off market plans. the availability of them. this is a thing democrats are going to fight against. they are going to start pushing up and trying to limit the effectiveness. you are going to see some agreement, particularly on medicare costs. the way they do things like aco's. i think lawmakers are going to have to -- regulators never love more than when policymakers and lawmakers ask "what can we do to help you lay out this issue?" how can we help you achieve this? how do you deal with people who have several come visions best conditions? --y will ask again

conditions. they will ask again. how do we deal with someone who is getting older? these of a kind of things. i would say they want this because no one in congress wants to be responsible for taking on this thorny issue. host: i wanted to pick up on the drug crisis issue that he and many others continue to talk about. have you seen any movement in that area? guest: yes. in some areas, they have proposed this big plan. --hink we are going to see this is where they have to put up or shut up. on some of the real issues and details. essentially, what they are saying is we are going to pay less for drugs. and we're going to push these costs down. one of the things that really gets talked about a lot -- really gets talked about a lot is are they going to do things like not cover drugs?

if drug makers are not going to bring the costs down, one of the reasons other countries, many other countries have socialized medicine, they pay less because part of the negotiation is that they say we are not going to cover this drug. if it is too expensive, we will not pay for and you will miss on this market. the u.s. government does not really work like that. a huged has to cover section of the drug industry. i think we are going to see something interesting. they are going to have to flesh this out. it seems like a great idea to pay less for drugs. the pharmaceutical industry is going to push hard against this. are we going to take more? ultimate question about health care. we all want to pay less but no one wants to accept, wants to get paid less money. if you told me we are going to pay less for the services i provide, i don't be the one that

want to be the one who gets paid less -- i don't want to be the one who gets paid less. there is this question of who is going to be the target? who will take the brunt of those costs? that is a big on noon -- unknown. writes "maybe monopolies and health care need to be busted up." betty is in virginia beach, good morning. caller: good morning and merry christmas and happy holidays to all. give me a chance. i am very new. saturday, i just turned 75. i am suffering from lung cancer. i have medicare and medicaid. is through god, not through the obamacare. a year ago, on december 18, i left the emergency room with my gallbladder intact.

procedures done and at the same time, because of a tax scandal, discover that i had lung cancer. when they did the second andedure, they did a biopsy the next day, the lung doctor came in and confirmed that i had lung cancer. , february of this year, i had one lung removed. surprised.ery i did not have to go to treatments. i just take a drug. for months, i have had permission. i don't even pay a premium for the medicare because when you have medicaid, like i do, the

medicaid pays the premium for the medicare. everything i have had done, i am so blessed. do you know what i paid? zero. i even get my drug. i pay eight dollars for the drug. stage 2.only i even get it delivered here to they don'tt and judge for the shipping. -- charge for the shipping. prescriptionsinor that i don't co-pay. -- why do we have legislatures? why we have supreme court's if one judge can strike down

obamacare? we know it was not perfect but i feel bad for those who have the and medicaid -- medicaid expansion. i will say this. if i was a billionaire, i could not have done better care than what i did. that's how blessed i am. host: thank you. we are running short on time. anything that you wanted to respond to? guest: happy birthday. . noticed late there is a lot the legislation could do to head off the lawsuit. congress has defeat the argument the judge had. it is likely that they will. to the way thet mandate is treated under law. just even the argument. -- just you raise the argument. there is no reason for them to do anything about it.

the political will is just not there. they are willing to sit back and let this play out. because there is a lot of expectation it will be appealed. and it probably will not be -- the appeals court will overturn the judges decision. lawmakers iime, have talked to have not had a lot of interest in doing anything. senate republicans have little interest in that. host: rudy in california. caller: hello, paul. i would like to say that i have several members and friends who work in a medical field. ,othing against mr. alex ruoff but i wish everybody would stop lying. health care is not going to go down. it is not going to happen. i have friends that are getting paid good money in the medical field. like you said before, sir, people don't want to take less money to work.

happy holidays and that was my thought, thank you very much. host: we are out of time with our guest. looking ahead to 2019, once again. what do you think some of the biggest developments are going to be? guest: the beckett -- biggest about it will be on drug pricing. -- and a lot of political will is going to be focused on it. magical as he is going to be there for a wild. -- nancy pelosi is going to be there for a while. as lawmakers argue about a lot of different things, one of the things they can agree on is that this is an issue that needs to be tackled. charles grassley is going to become head of the finance community. he is a longtime hawk on this issue. if anyone is going to push this along, i think it is going to be

him. a staunch conservative. -- he keeps these free-market ideas that republicans can hang onto. i think it is locating proof that they are going to jump on. i think, particularly as you look at how this issue has been treated, there is going to be a lot of will there. is probably in the next two years, you will see policy at the president's desk. other than that, i think a lot of the insurance questions and issues, the thorny health issues, they are dividing congress. they will be talking past each other on this. there will not be much agreement. they often don't do things without deadlines in congress. we don't have too many bills coming up.

it is an occasion for them to come and rewrite some will -- rules. we don't have too many of those big bills coming up. host: our guest is alex ruoff, a reporter for bloomberg government. bgov.com for his work. thank you a lot for coming on and talking about the future of health care in the u.s.. we will take another short break then it is a 2 of washington journal's weeklong series. some of the most important books of the year. after the break, we will be joined by oren cass. lots more of your phone calls. we will be right back. ♪

>> christmas day on c-span. at 11:40 5 a.m. eastern, a look back on this year's memorial services. for first -- at 11:45 a.m. eastern, a look back on this year's memorial services for barbara bush, senator john mccain and president george h w bush. at 8:00, former president barack obama, former secretary of state james baker and historian john meacham on the u.s.'s role in the world. >> if there is a problem around the world, people do not call moscow or beijing. they call washington. even our adversaries expect us to solve problems. and expect us to keep things running. >> and at 9:00, a conversation with entrepreneurs on women in corporate america. >> and we know that women's networks tend to look very female heavy. men's networks tend to look male heavy.

that might be fine when you're in your first position. who do you think wins with a network by the time you get to senior leadership? >> watch christmas day on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house. the supreme court. and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span's brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. >> this is day 2 of washington journal's office from around the country. we are doing seven days of what we think are some of the most important books of the year. joining us from new york city is

oren cass, a senior fellow at the manhattan institute and the author of the future worker. thank you for joining us this morning to talk about the american worker. you wrote that american workers are -- what do you mean? guest: thank you for having me. the focus on the american worker and the crisis that he is in or that workers are in is that best about what is happening in our economy, going back to the 1960's and how we have chosen to take an approach to economic policy that is just worried about consumers. and just worried about living standards. as long as the economy keeps growing, as long as everybody and tds keepuff getting bigger, we will all be happy. -- what we is that lost is that people care about

work. they need to be able to support their families with work. a huge segment of society has gone in the wrong direction. it has had big consequences for how people feel about their own lives. what happens with their families and their communities. thatnk we are seeing now with what we are expensing with the country. host: you are saying that the policy has succeeded at the wrong things. you say it is like the romantic comedy "heroine." where the woman had all or so she thought. she had an elegant apartment yet she is not happy. she has pursued the wrong goals. and to reach them, she sacrificed the things that mattered most. what has gone wrong in your view with public policy that has led to the conditions that you cite these days? policyif you look at the that we have chosen and the

whole range of areas, what they have done is focused on what we call the economic high. -- pie. anyone who is in policy debates -- asrt as long week we grow the pie, everyone can have a bigger piece. that is true. as it keeps getting bigger, everyone get some of that or you have winners and losers, we can take some from the winners and give it to the losers. but to do that, we pursue this approach in all of these weferent areas that say don't think it matters if we have big losers along the way because we can always redistribute this pie to them. we can always send them a bigger check. we can give them bigger government benefits. we have done those things. gdp has roughly tripled since the 70's. quadrupled.on has if you look at what has

happened. , all wehave done is care about is college graduates. we will put all of our focus in high school on preparing people for college. and all of our resources into subsidizing college for people who go. and for the people who actually succeed and come out the other end with degrees and with careers, they are incredibly productive. some of them are very successful. they earn a lot of money and pay a lot of taxes. but, along the way, we leave behind everybody for whom college is not the right pathway. most americans do not earn a community college degree. if you're someone who is going through high school or interested in college but is not likely to succeed in college, -- we don't have anything for you except for a shrug and i'm sorry. and this safety net. that's not what they want. they need a chance to be

productive contributors. to achieve self-sufficiency for themselves and their families. so, we need to focus much more on their role as workers. and making sure that as workers, everybody can still play a constructive role in our economy and society. host: let me jump in and invite the viewers to phoning with the future of the worker. we talked about education. we will talk about immigration. oren cass is the author of the book the once and future worker. you live in the eastern or central time zone, your phone number is (202) 748-8000. mountain or pacific time zone, (202) 748-8001. if you're a displaced worker, call (202) 748-8003. --(202) 748-8002.

i wanted to get some terminology on the table. you use a term called economic piety. one of your recent pieces. what is economic piety refer to -- what does economic piety refer to? guest: it is the economic pie. it is interesting to look back these ideasry and of gdp and economic growth, we need to measure how big the economy is in focus on that. that, relatively speaking, is a recent idea. it is something that showed up during the great depression, when we were trying to measure exactly whether or not the economy had started growing. it became important during world war ii, which side could make the most stop the fastest. that was a concern. after the war was over, we kept using that as our measure. iskept measuring gdp, which

a measure of the total amount of stuff the economy makes, we used that as our measure of well-being. it is an important measure. when the economy makes more stuff, everybody can have more stuff. we care about living standards. we like having better houses, better cars, bigger tds. and more variety and higher-quality food. those things are important. what has gotten lost along the way is we focused more on that with the question of who got to be involved? as long as the economy keeps doing bigger, as long as it keeps expanding, everyone will be better off we said. we did not figure out who makes the pie. what we have come to learn is the second question of who is getting to be involved is incredibly important. you take this view that i call economic piety, which is as long as everyone gets an applied,

they will be happy, as long as they get enough stuff, they will be happy. you end up pursuing policies that don't take into account who is actually remaining relevant to the economy, whether we are building an economy in a society that includes everybody. so, because we never focused on it and we were happy to trade that wouldr policies grow it faster. when we talk about education and immigration, you see a similar thing. goodtrade can be a very thing. more immigration can be a good thing. but, if you don't pay attention to the worker perspective, if you don't pay attention to what is happening to jobs in the country, you can take it too far or make the wrong decision. that is what we have done. economic piety works. we got the big gdp. we got the big these of pie for everybody. -- slice of pie for everybody.

on the metrics that matter most, whether they can build good lives or a stable family or kids who will have opportunity, it turns out that just getting more stuff does not solve those things. you really need an economy and especially a labor market that is going to let places still be productive as workers. host: before we go to calls, you do connect this to social policy. and social problems. how has the u.s. economic policy in the last decade affected social conditions in the country? i think the important thing to understand when we talk about work is the importance of work and workers is not just some sort of moral or philosophical argument. there are good moral and philosophical reasons to talk about. in this case, we are focusing on tangible things. we know that for individuals,

their satisfaction, their mental health, their self-esteem, those things are tied closely to whether they have productive work. we know that when it comes to families, especially for men, credit wek is in important -- incredibly important to family formation and stability. one of the things we see with higher levels of unemployment for men. there are much higher levels of divorce. that has an effect on children. children raised in households whose parents are working tend to have better outcomes in their own lives. even beyond their parents. children raised in communities where the adults are working have much better outcomes in their lives. when we have moved to a model where we were not as concerned if everyone was going to be up to work productively or have families,upport their we have started to do real damage in other areas as well.

it sets off something of a vicious cycle. when you don't have stable families, when you don't have opportunities for kids or an education system that is preparing people for productive work, the next generation, as they grow up, they have a harder time. we are starting to see the second-generation that has lived through this approach to policy and is growing up in communities where significant majorities of the households do not have people working full-time. becomehe government has incredibly widespread. for those kids, as they grow up, it is going to be harder for work and start to build emily's of their own. host: let's take some calls. from silver spring, maryland. good morning. caller: you pretty much answered my question. globalization and

people being pitted against one for the working fee, how do you see it playing out globally? what is your answer on a global basis? with people not being able to work, what happens to the surplus of people who are not needed? what happens? it looks dangerous. host: thank you. oren cass? guest: i think you are right that this is dangerous if you have a situation where people are not needed. the first thing to say is that we recognize that is not and it -- an acceptable outcome. as we think about how our society, holly wanted to look, one of our principles needs to be that everybody does need to be needed. an economy where

everyone is a productive worker. in terms of what that means for policy and as we talk about things like globalization, from my perspective, globalization can be a wonderful thing. the problem is not necessarily with trade. more trade can be great for an economy. more trade can be great for workers of all kinds. what we have to insist on is that it is balanced trade. what i mean by that is as globalization is proceeded and we do more and more trade, what happens is we have found ourselves importing much more from other countries. and especially from china. and we export to those countries. from the perspective of consumers, that can be a great thing. trade literally means trade. what are you training for what? if we have to send less stuff for other people and other people sent off lots of stuff, that sounds like a great trade if you are a consumer. you get more and cheaper stuff.

typically, economists and policymakers have celebrated that. the problem is that from the perspective of workers, that is not such a good trade at all. if you think about the labor market, if you think about the part of the economy where workers are active and we are seeing what they are going to do, how much are they going to get paid, if you have a situation where other people in other countries are making a lot of the stopper this country, we have lots of new workers coming into the country's economy, we have workers all over the world competing here. but our workers are not getting the same chance to go compete in other places. our workers are knocking the chance to do things to the same degree from other parts of the world. that imbalance is a problem for workers. i think we want to recognize the globalization -- that globalization can be a great thing but it is not automatically a great thing. if we wanted to work for workers , our society and our economy, we have to insist that we have

balance. that we are actually doing our work and making as much stuff for the rest of the world as people in other places are making for us. host: we have a line for displaced workers. we have a displaced worker. rob for morgan. thank you for joining us. tell us your situation. -- rum or gone. .- from oregon they keep joining us. tell us your situation. caller: i was downsized a year and a half ago. one day, they called me into the for costd said that reasons, they were going to terminate my whole department and ship it over to holland. host: what kind of work again? caller: i.t.. computers. host: ok. caller: i am in my upper 50's.

i am going around, looking for new positions and there are things happening. where been to interviews "i don't knowid why you are applying here." you could be my boss's boss. i am looking at a situation where i am going to have to go maketo school and somehow it for months at a time. will have to spend tens to 20's of thousands of dollars just to make it to my retirement. it seems hopeless. people better of over 50 in the same position. host: thank you for calling. good luck to you. oren cass, what would you say to rob and people like rob? guest: i appreciate you sharing

that story. i think that is a story that is happening to lots of folks across the economy. it is an incredibly difficult one. especially as workers are later on in their careers, you can get this disconnect between the kinds of jobs and skills you're prepared to do and what employers might be looking for. the narrow question of what do we do for individuals in this situation and then the bigger question of what it means for our economy. for individuals, we have to recognize that it has always been the case and it will always be the case that these kinds of disruptions will occur. whether it is new companies coming in and putting old companies out of business or companies moving where they do business. whether it is new technologies changing the way that companies

do business, this kind of disruption is a constant part of our economy. it is a goodance, thing for the economy. it is a very hard thing for the individual workers were affected by it. so, going back a little bit too something we were talking about earlier, i think we have to look at our education system and make sure that it is one that is flexible for all of the different kinds of situations that folks face. one of the problems that -- with the model we have insisted on is that all of our investment goes into these 2 and 4 year college campuses for people who are barely 20 years old. and that is what we think society needs. certainly, we do need education programs for those folks. but the range of kinds of education and the kinds of skills people need to learn at different points in their lives is much broader and more diverse than that. one thing we have to do is say "

there are actually lots of people in all phases of life in high school, up to where rob is who need that kind of quicker, shorter, how do i find a particular skill that people demand right now?" we need to put emphasis on that kind of education that gets people into the workforce quickly. one thing i will say quickly at the big picture level is that it can be a good thing for the economy to have this kind of change and disruption and things moving. but, again, we have to have -- wee sure it is found worried make sure it is bounce. when they lose one job, -- that is a little bit of what we lost.

while a lot of jobs go away to other countries, we are not seeing jobs that used to be done in the other countries be done here instead. we need to make sure both things happen so that the workers can -- who get disrupted or displaced find an economy where there are good opportunities as well. host: we have five minutes left with our guest. he is oren cass. there is the front cover of the book. he has a bachelor's in political economy and a law degree from harvard. he was the domestic policy director for mitt romney's presidential campaign in 2011 and 2012. what will senator mitt romney be bringing in the area of economics? what does he bring to the table? this is an area where he brings a tremendous amount of

expertise, as someone who has spent a lot of his life in the business world. we have to understand what these economic forces are that play a role in the decision that employers make. and play a role in what kinds of work are available. and i think he has a really good way of approaching it. 2012, some ofnd these issues that we have been talking about in terms of education, especially in terms of trade imbalances were things that he really push on strongly ouray, look, if we want economies to operate well, then policy has a role to play in that. whatever assume that the market does on its own, it is automatically going to work best for the workers we have here. we have to make sure that the economy is operating within the context of the conditions that

are going to produce good outcomes. he has a deep understanding of those things. joins --pe is that he as he joins the senate, he will be a strong voice on the republican side. on the one hand, defending the incredible power of the free market, but at the same time, emphasizing that we have to pay attention to the results we are getting the markets. -- from the markets. for it is not acceptable our society, it is not acceptable to say let's do something else. we must ask why are we getting the results we are not happy with? and what can we change that would bring better results? host: what do you make a president trump's approach to matters of the economy and the future of the american worker in

this country? how is he doing so far? guest: as a candidate, i think he did something important, which is, he started to talk in these terms about work being important. and people caring about their experience as workers. i think, typically both the democrat and republican parties were very focused on this economic piety. that the goal is to grow the economy as fast as we can and redistribute to take care of the losers. and we are going to fight about how to grow the economy passes. redistribution to do. that is what we will talk about. and candidate trump did not sound like that, did not sell my democrats or republicans on that. a big part of his success was that he was talking about a different set of problems. he was talking about what economic piety had missed and what was important to a lot of

folks who were being left behind. i think, as president, some of the policy areas he is focused on have been important ones. but, i think, unfortunately, on the execution side, we have not seen a lot of policy reform that is going to move us forward. that is where there is a german is a lot of work to do great how do we do good policies -- get the policies in place that are going to turn the ship a little bit? host: in stratford, connecticut, good morning. you're on with oren cass. caller: can you hear me? good morning. fascinating discussion. this characterization of irredeemable, deplorables always struck me as a class warfare of the wealthy and powerful and working forces. referencecording the to policy execution being ifferent from policy goals,

am looking at this government shutdown and it is framed, entirely in the perspective of how does it impact federal workers. how does it impact federal recipients and programs? nobody is characterizing it as the failure of the federal government to stop the flow of cheap labor coming into the country. and, in the process, undermining the age wage for folks at the lower end of the economic scale. for democrats, those are democrat votes. you get people who are going to be legally, or illegally voting. and, therefore -- the conventional wisdom for republicans is cheap labor. small business and everybody is happy. is that how you view this dynamic question mark -- is that how you view this dynamic? guest: the immigration issue is

such a fascinating one and such a mess. it has been for a very long time. in part, because of some of the dynamics that you just described. that, you know, from a perspective offrom the perspectf business, having access to more cheaper workers is always a good from the left of politicalere is a calculation and a humanitarian calculation, both of which argues strongly for having relatively open borders. now in some extreme cases, completely open borders. , ifith the trade question you look at this just from our perspective as consumers, that has proved to make a lot of sense. from theok at it perspective of workers, it becomes more complicated and a question of balance. immigration is not necessarily a

good thing or a bad thing. what we have to look at is what we are worried about is workers, what we are worried about is our labor market and the kinds of jobs in the wages they pay, is where do we have imbalances in our labor market? if one of the things we are most concerned about is a significant imbalance for less skilled american workers right now. if looking ahead, we are more worried about that and more worried about are there going to be enough good jobs. how do we make sure there are good jobs for less skilled workers in this country? it cannot be that part of the answer is to add more less skilled workers. debate,the immigration may be more than any other, comes down to priorities. if what you think is most important is economic growth, then you might say as much immigration as possible. mostat you think is important is the humanitarian

concern, then you would look at it through that lens. if you think what is most important is making sure we have good activities for workers and you are concerned about less skilled workers, both for themselves, families, communities, and the economy as well, then having a lot of less skilled immigration does not make sense and you would say we have to move to the kind of system that other developed countries like canada and australia have, which says yes we want to be welcome to immigrants. we think immigration strengthens our country, but skill level matters. given where our economy is, we want to be encouraging immigration and restricting less skilled immigrants entering the workforce host:. from the pages of the once and future worker, the immigration debate is about america's priority. if gdp rose is the goal that all forms of immigration might make sense.

if reducing consumer prices is the goal, then inviting enough workers to work for as little as possible might be the right choice. if lowering -- the economic case for unskilled immigration collapses. "the once and future worker" by our guest, oren cass joining us from new york. let's take a call from barney in north carolina. here is an intelligent in the 21st century. he is talking about the balance of trade. that stuff is not

important. it is all about stuff. ok? the middle of the 19th 1845, a man said id file you -- id file you -- i every --ell me that if if other countries flood our shores with useful goods, that we are the worse for it. this country, even more so with allp, of course, that with of the other countries in the world, are operating on the mercantilist system, or that presumption should that there

has to be a balance of trade. the biggest imbalance, the more your deficit goes up, the better off you are. host: thanks for calling. oren cass in new york, speak to us about trade issues, especially the current situation with the so-called trade wars that are happening and the approach the administration is taking to that issue and its impact on the worker. stated theey standard case exactly right. that was a perfect illustration of economic piety, where he said it is all about stuff. second of all, as he said, the standard economic view for a long time was that if other countries want to flood us with more stuff, we should be delighted with that. everybody likes more stuff. intuitively you realize

that is not quite right. stuff is important, but stuff is not the only thing were the most important thing. a concrete example when you are talking about trade and this idea of balanced trade is to think about what trades do we want to have occurring. in one example, you can imagine the united states is a leading producer of airplanes. let's say china decides it wants to buy an extra $50 billion of airplanes from us, and in return it is going to send us $50 billion of cars. that is the trade. cars for airplanes. if you are a u.s. auto manufacturer, you would not like that trade, but if you are an airplane manufacturer you would love it. from the perspective of workers, you would say that is fine. you might have less employment in the auto sector and more in the airplane sector.

you would still expect the economy to be healthy. the question becomes what if we change the trade? what if we move toward this idea of people sending us stuff and what if china wants to send us $50 billion of cars and in return we send them $50 billion of treasury bonds? treasury bonds of the u.s. government's debt. it is literally and i are you that says -- it is literally an o.u. that says we are not giving anything now but we promise to give you 50 billion dollars of stuff with interest. so if you're not sending stuff back you are sending back assets , treasury bonds, real estate. if you have a relationship where we say we want the stuff and we will send back an i.o.u. instead, and this is how trade policy has worked, as a consumer of stuff you might be happy.

that is not a good arrangement for workers because you have stopped making the cars. you are more of the cars from china and there is nothing else you started making instead. that is not a good deal for workers in the short run. if you step back and think about the u.s. economy, it is not a good choice for the u.s. economy. it is not a good choice for consumers. you are putting the economy on a lower trajectory. your building up debt. you are weakening our capacity to make things. you are weakening the industries where we might be more productive over time. while economic theory has said for a long time that is great, let them send us stuff, it is not actually great. it is a narrowminded view of what it takes to be a flourishing society and to have a strong economy. seriouslye the view

-- if you take the worker abuse seriously and realize that is important what we care about in this country, then it is not enough to have people send us stuff. we need to make sure we are making stuff year. host: pat in new jersey. cap is a displaced worker. what is your situation? caller: minas similar to the man who called before. 70's an i.t. worker in the -- in the 1970's. we were told our future was in knowledge jobs. we all went that route and we -- we were forced not once but twice to import workers. you are displacing americans who have to transfer their knowledge and be given a get -- a discharge slip. how do you expect to maintain a consumer driven economy were not enough consumers have an income source?

who is going to buy these products from china if americans cannot afford them? host: interesting point from pat. guest: that is another important dimension. even when you talk about the consumer perspective, it is important to a consumer driven economy that you have consumers who are also workers, who are earning money they can spend. one thing we have tried to do and have been fairly successful in doing is making up for that cap through redistribution. throughgap redistribution. you have workers are not able to earn enough, we spend more than $1 trillion a year redistributing money toward lower income households. a tremendous amount of that goes toward health care spending but there is also a large disability program to transfer money to households where folks are on

disability so they are not working at all. there is a large food stamp program to transfer resources to spend on food. there is a large housing program. the direction we have been going is to keep doing that. to say the economy is not producing enough wages for lower income households. biggereep creating programs to transfer the money to them to allow them to buy things. i think we are seeing two problems with that. one is that from a consumption perspective, you end up with all of the consumption weighted on the basis of your transfer programs. one way to understand the incredible growth in our health care sector and how that has become such an important part of our economy is because that is the form we have choose and -- chosen to do transfers in. and if you're a low income healthld, if you have a

care need, there is close to a blank check from the government to spend on health care. if what you need is a car to get to work or to do renovations to your house or to consume in other parts of the economy, we say we do not have any help. behavior in the economy if we say consumption will be more and more about the programs we want to offer. the second problem, which is even larger, is just that it is not an adequate model. you can make sure people have enough stuff with that kind of redistribution, but they are not necessarily going to be satisfied in how they feel about their own lives, they will be less likely to build healthy families. they will have more trouble raising kids who will find opportunity themselves.

communities that become increasingly reliant on transfers instead of productive work are ones where you have more crime, hiring addiction rate, and all kinds of other problems flowing from those things. this is the theme we keep coming back to. it turns out the stuff is not enough. it is not enough to have a model where some people are successful and we send stuffed everybody else. when you to make sure we have a model for the economy where people, wherever they are, whatever they can do, have an opportunity to be productive workers and earn their own way in life. host: take what we have been talking about and put it in context with this story in the "washington times." the headline says help wanted -- not enough people to fill jobs. they are making the point that the economy is running so hot businesses cannot find people to fill their want ads. people the6 million

labor market says were unemployed at that point. they make the point that the bureau of labor statistics shows the openings included more than 20,000 jobs in the i.t. sector, more than 38,000 jobs in real estate leasing, 40,000 in education, including state and local government jobs. can you put that in context for us? guest: the economy at the moment is doing well. the stock market is showing signs of trouble. the labor market and the real economy are clearly booming. we are headed toward the top of the business cycle, meaning that as we compare it to the recession five or 10 years ago, we have made incredible progress. we are seeing that when you have a booming economy and you have tight and you have a labor market, lots of employers who are trying to hire people,

that is a great thing for workers. the problem is it is not right to compare how we are doing now to how we were doing in the recession. obviously we are doing better now than we were. to understand what has been happening in our economy coming up to compare one boom to another boom. you have to compare now to 2007, before the recession, or how were we doing in 2000 before the burst or the late 1980's before that recession hit. you find each boom has been a little weaker than the one before it. we are not seeing wages grow as rapidly as we had in prior booms. in terms, especially for the share of men working full times, we have a much higher share of men without work. each boom we find we have more men who are not working and our current figure, close to 19% of

prime age men, men between 25 25 percent of those men do not have full-time work. by comparison, if you go back to the great before recession, that would be the worst figure on record. by the standard of before the great recession, the share of men without work looks like them worst recession year we have ever had. things feel great compared to the recession, but the way to see what happened, i describe the metaphor is bumps on a downward slope. if you picture a kid sledding down a hill and there are jumps on the hill, every time they hit a jump they go up and they scream and they are excited. then they land lower down and then they hit the jump and they are excited and they end up lower down. you can go off a lot of great jumps but still end up at the

bottom of the hill. that is what we have been doing. we are at a high right now but no better than 2007. no better than 2000. we have not made any of the changes we would need to switch from a downward trajectory to an upward trajectory. we should not feel more confident that we have gotten things fixed now when we would've had a right to feel during those previous periods when obviously we did not have things figured out. host: stephen is on the line from roanoke, virginia. what would you like to say? o things iere are tw would like to touch on. one is the h-1b visa program. people use the shortage of technical people to justify importation. it has been my personal experience that we do have people who are scientists and engineers already. they are not in their 20's.

i am in my late 50's. encountered huge age discrimination the last three years trying to find a job. then i turn around and hear there are not enough scientists and engineers. both cannot be true. businesses use this perceived -- asge as an increase to an excuse to import cheap labor from overseas or to retain grad students here once they have finished, and then i have to spend three years searching for the most minimal job. i was lucky to find one but i am working way under my capabilities, but i feel lucky to have any job at all. a lot of these online hiring services like some you do not want me to say by name, they are thinly veiled mechanisms for implementing the most vicious age discrimination in hiring. it does not seem to matter how much education you get. if you're not in your 20's or

willing to work to cheap, businesses do not want you could -- businesses do not want you. host: oren cass. the h-1b visa program is an example of the layers upon layers of broken system we have dealt. built out of the mess our immigration system is. the answer when we talk about higher skilled immigration is to say we like the idea of high -- of having higher skilled immigration moving to the country where they can contribute innovation, but we our to do that just for immigration system, just for people choosing to live here. we do not want to do that through a program where specific companies try to game the system to bring in particular people to lower their cost.

unfortunately, we've created the h-1b system as a band-aid on a very broken system. it has a lot of these problems of its own. the right way to approach the bigger question is to say when we have more skilled people they'reo the country, are going to cause displacement and disruption. we know they're going to do it in a way that creates a lot more economic activity, that creates a lot more opportunity for other workers of all kinds. in the long run, we think that will be healthy for the economy. we want to do it in that general economy wide way. not with something like in h-1b visa that allows individual foranies to make the case why they need to bring in a particular worker, and that workers then tied to their company. it is a symptom of a much more broken system. host: oren cass, you have a

chapter in the book on the environment and the economy. right balance between protecting the environment but also growing the economy, protecting workers. how do you see that? guest: that is a good question. this isrecognizing that a place where there are real trade-offs and we have to find a balance. if you think back to 1970, when we put many of our environmental laws into effect, that is when we created the epa, created the clean air act, that was a time when we had an incredibly strong industrial economy that was dominating the world and very serious pollution problems. we put in place these laws that tried to swing the pendulum back to put someuld like limits on the industrial economy and growth in industry so we can start to improve the environment

. the good news is that worked tremendously. we have made incredible gains in environmental quality. pollution in the air is down by two thirds. one of the things i find most remarkable is that brussels, the capital of the european union, would be the city -- the single dirtiest city in the united states if it was here. that is how clean we have managed to make our air. later is 45 or 50 years and we have not made any changes to our policy. we continue to turn the dial further and further, to crank the ratchet tighter. if youday we still say want to try to expand an industrial facility or build a new one or try to get approval for an infrastructure project, we will have incredibly stringent environmental requirements led to make the project unattractive.

that is not the right balance to strike. desperately in need of those kinds of jobs. we know communities want those kinds of jobs. when you see cities and states throwing tax breaks that companies to get them to come invest, when you see them begging the federal government to come to infrastructure projects, what they're saying is we see the value of having these things here is higher than the cost. get our environmental laws say the opposite. i think we have to remember the importance of environmental quality. we do not want to go back to the 1970's. we have to say that right now, given where we are, the trade-off we should make is a different one. right now we are willing to slow our environmental gains. toyou tell us we're going have to go back to the environmental quality of 10 years ago, that was pretty great. we would be willing to except

that if it means we get more investment in heavy industry, in natural resource use, and infrastructure. that those things have value and we want to recognize that value instead of only prioritizing the environment. host: we have time for a few more calls for our guest. florida, you are on the air with oren cass. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i have not had a chance to read your book but i wanted to ask a question about wages and the cheap wages that are affecting the very things you mentioned in terms of being able to afford housing, etc., and all of those things as well as immigrants .oming into our country

i do not know if you address --ther a minimum living wage what with the effect of a living some of theerms of things you mentioned in terms of the trillions of dollars spent on health care, housing, food stamps. taking some of the resources from gains that would limit the government from paying out so ofh money in terms subsidizing corporation by keeping the minimum wage low and how would that affect subsidizing some of the smaller businesses that we need in terms of tax incentives. ofloyment is needed in terms lower wages. host: let's hear from our guest. guest: i'm glad you asked that question.

andink that is a topic policy choices that are important to talk about in this context. it is find a talk about all of these broader policy areas, the environment, education, trade, immigration, but what can we do to get wages higher. raising thenk minimum wage to a living wage is the right answer. the reason for that is because that benefits the people who get the higher wage. it hurts the people who employers choose not to hire at that wage because they cannot earn money paying wages that high. one of the things that is important to recognize about the labor market is that when you create a job in the labor market, you are essentially creating a partnership between a worker who can provide value to an employer and an employer who can make use of that worker. those partnerships are important.

we need more of them. we need to encourage them to happen. when you say we will have a $15 an hour minimum wage, you are saying we do not want those partnerships of they are not worth $15 an hour. you're going to lose a lot of potentially valuable partnerships if you do that. the policy approach i favor instead, and i think the question got to this a little bit, is what is called a wage subsidy. the idea of a wage subsidy is you look at low-wage workers in particular, and say if you are earning a low hourly wage, we are going to put more money into that paycheck from the government. just like we take money out of ,ach paycheck for payroll taxes if you look at each paycheck and that little line which means fica, the amount taken out for social security and medicare, we

could have a line that paycheck that says work credit and could put more money in. or a nine dollar an hour job could become an hour job. ofyou subsidize work instead setting some a high minimum wage, you get the same effect. you get more money into people's paychecks but instead of discouraging these partnerships between workers and employers, you encourage it. you say to the worker that even if the employer was not going to be able to offer u.s. high a , we can help get your wage up to that level. you say to the employer, even if you were going to have trouble finding workers at the wage you could afford to pay them, we are going to help make that work. if you do that, you encourage more less skilled people to come into the labor market and work and you encourage employers to offer more jobs and build

businesses that will use those workers, and you get more money into those paychecks, into their households. then you have to ask how are we going to pay for it? the way to pay for it is from the safety net we have. as i said earlier we spend more than one join dollars a year transferring money to lower income households. we do almost all of it in ways that ignore work or discourage work. if you start working, you will lose the benefit. i think a lot of those programs we still need. there are a lot of people who need that support. instead of doing all that way, we said let's do 80%, that kind of safety net, but let's have 20% of it focused on work, i'm giving money to people who are working, we could fund this kind of program and instead of transferring benefits to people

every year to help them get by, we have a safety net that started to help connect people to jobs and helped start moving up in the economy. i think that is a much better approach than raising the minimum wage to start getting paychecks hire. do it in a way that encourages work instead of telling employers do not bother hiring these folks. host: let's grab one more call. alex is in illinois. caller: good morning. problems with the the economy has been trickle-down economics. they have been pushing this series since ronald reagan that everything trickles down. it is not done anything for the middle class. that has been stagnant ever since. i think it is the other way .round it should be trickle up and not trickle-down.

i want to see what you thought about that? economics ore down what people who like it would call supply-side economics is a key part of this economic piety we've been talking about. of idea that the goal cutting taxes, of trying to encourage more investment and more business is to get economic growth, to get the economy to grow bigger. the view from the right of center, from republicans has been that if you do that it is going to automatically benefit everybody. i think as the caller said, it is pretty clear that does not automatically benefit everybody. that is one of the key challenges conservatives have to grapple with. we want economic growth, we want free markets for a lot of important reasons, but we also care about the outcome. if we are not getting the right outcome as far as society, then we will have to do more. we will have to find ways to

make the labor market work better. on the flipside, the problem for the left of center has been when the economic growth has not been benefiting everybody. the answer has been we need to collect more in taxes from the people it does benefit and give that to people it doesn't. that is not enough. that does not solve the problems they have. the way we need to approach things and focus public policy is to focus on the labor market and to say how can we build a labor market and a society that is going to work for workers of all kinds, that is going to let workers support their families and communities. if we do that, we will get a lot of those outcomes. we will get the growth. will get the prosperity we all want at the end of the day. host: our guest in new york has been oren cass, a senior fellow at the manhattan institute and author of this book entitled "the once and future worker."

thanks a lot for your time and for an hour of conversation on the future of work and the worker in this country. appreciate it. guest: it was my pleasure. this december 20 fourth, monday, day three of the federal government shut down. things continue unchanged in washington. a bit of news overnight and yesterday and this morning on the story. the shutdown does continue. more of your calls when we come back. if you support the shutdown, (202) 748-8000, if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 (202) if your federal worker we want to hear your situation. (202) 748-8002. we will be right back. ♪ c-span, ats day on 11:45 eastern, a look back at this year's memorial services for first lady barbara bush,

senator john mccain, and president george h. w. bush. then at 3:30, admiral william at raven on the future of the u.s. military. , former barack obama secretary of state james baker and historian john me jump on the u.s.'s role in the world. if there is a problem in the world, people do not call moscow or beijing, they call washington. even our adversaries expect us to solve problems and expect is to keep things running. and at 9:00, a conversation with entrepreneurs on women in corporate america. >> we know women's networks tend to look female heavy. men's networks tend to look male heavy. that might be find your first position out of school. who do you think wins with the network by the time you get to senior leadership? >> watch tuesday, christmas day, on c-span.

>> tonight on "the communicators," and author talks ,bout his book the fourth age about artificial intelligence and robots. >> i think we are at a point where we are creating a couple of new technologies that are of that magnitude and will change generation,ry in a and those are artificial intelligence by which we outsource human thought and robots by which we outsource human action. the question is when you build machines to think and act for us, what is next? what do we do. ," watch "the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: a few more minutes to take more of your calls. the government shutdown. the house and senate back today

for pro forma sessions. no business, but we will be watching both on c-span. the house at 10:30 and the senate at 11:00. we do not expect any action the bodiesday, when will have an open session. sure. still not a lot of the voices saying this will drag on through the rest of the year and into the new year and the new congress. here is a picture of the national christmas tree. publicclose to the sunday because of the partial shutdown of the federal government. you can see the signs in the area is closed. you can see the tree over the fence. that and many other spots are closed to the public. other places are open. certain parks are open around d.c.-- around bathrooms are closed. the local events of all of this. the wall street journal goes on to say that if the shutdown is

still going on when the new in, speakersworn pelosi could pass a spending bill with no border funding and send it to the senate during she said she supported a bipartisan spending bill that would keep the government running through february, expected to move quickly to pass that in january. after that, they write in the journal, democratic lawmakers -- to win concessions from the gop. help good use measures to immigrants brought to the country illegally or other changes to immigration policy. more of what might lie ahead. john is calling from wisconsin. good morning. what you think about the shutdown? .aller: i'm a retiree i went through many shutdowns. here's what we should plan for as people could if we are not able to do those things there is

a problem. the other thing i would like to say that because of the shutdown, everybody is in a panic. it comes from all sides. the house, the senate, and the president. host: how do you feel now? .aller: i feel it is a sham i am mad at congress because all they have to do is act to fix things because they are the ones who do it, they make the law. all the president does is in force it. if they make it, he will enforce it. host: thanks for calling. more of your calls as we continue with this monday edition of the "washington journal." chris is on the line from indiana. we are from central indiana at princes lakes. everybody agrees with what is going on to support our president. that is the bottom line.

you have to support your president. everybody else's treasonous. host: what you make of the folks that are going to be out of work , services that may not be happening, what you make of the impact? caller: having been laid off several times in my life because of political things, i look at all this as people are concerned about what their agenda is. not all of us went to liberal arts schools. some of us made our living by our hands working hard paycheck-to-paycheck to put our kids through college. some of this does not seem fair and right for those who follow the rule of law all of their lives and then they see political interest groups getting what they want ahead of us. 63% of all money going out to public assistance goes to non-americans according to the last census if i heard it correctly. chris.hat was a lot of folks are asking what is opened and what is closed. will they get a check for

, one caller asked. huffington post reminds us that during a shutdown social security checks will go out and troops remain at posts. doctors in hospitals will get their medicare and medicaid reimbursement. deliveringservice packages this holiday season is an and appointed -- is an independent agency and will not be affected. passport services will continue. every essential government agency, including the fbi, border patrol, and coast guard will remain open. transportation officers will staff airport checkpoints. care,re, veterans health and many other essential programs will run as usual. fema will continue to respond to disasters. they talk about the nearly 90% of the dhs staff of 240,000 people will be at work because they are considered essential. -- theywhat is open

point out federal workers will get paid eventually. huffington post.com, you can read more about all of that. paul is calling from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i heard yesterday a clip you played from senator schumer speaking about the shutdown, in which he said that the billion dollars appropriated last year for border security has not yet been spent. i would like to play the clip i do and if that is true, not know what they are arguing about. if the money is not been spent wouldhat in the world want to spend another $3.6 it for ar appropriate wall when we have not spent the

other money at? host: thanks for your point. paul from florida. we do have one clip, not from chuck schumer, which we showed yesterday, but mick mulvaney made a little bit of news on one of the morning shows yesterday talking about the future of the shutdown dragging on. and what might be happening from the white house and in terms of any offers today. [video clip] i met yesterday with the vice president and mr. schumer, as your story indicated, to talk about where we were in the discussions. we had given a counter offer to mr. schumer late yesterday afternoon. immediately thereafter the senate when into recess until thursday. will bes not mean it until thursday into we hear something back, but i do not think things will move quickly. >> are we talking a week? >> a couple different things. it is sunday.

the government to shut down tomorrow anyway because it is a federal holiday, and tuesday christmas, another holiday. wednesday is the first day this kicks in. they checks will go out on the 28th. no one is working without getting paid. the next pay period that is impacted his january 11. it is possible the shutdown will go beyond the 28th and into the new congress. host: more of what mick mulvaney talked about is featured in the "washington times." is theapitulates -- that way the washington times is putting it. thing the president has offered to come down on the border wall, signing a bill that limits the type of fencing. -- the 5 billion the president

has demanded this year, he says they will agree to the money. it must be spent on a steel slatted fence that would rule out any of the concrete prototypes the president has tested. the times indicates the willingness to accept less money may not be as important as the president's indication he will accept fencing instead of a wall. in the campaign he said only a wall would work. there read breitbart.com, headlines says wall cave. citing the story we just read. let's hear from david in south carolina. caller: from what i understand, workers are never losing that money but there will be a delay on paychecks which can be hard. it amounts to paid time off

because they do not have to make up the hours but they will not lose money in the end, is that correct. host: some of the leaders one decayed there is no guarantee. the senate passed a bill yesterday to do that. the house has not done that yet. usually they do that. it is not totally guaranteed. anything else? caller: you mentioned immigration policy. the cat is out of the bag. the purpose of open borders is to import votes for a permanent democrat ruling class. i do not know why that is not obvious to everyone. i think democrats like that and the press does not want to talk about that part but it is obviously the objective of having open borders. another reason i mention that is i think the offer of money for increased border security was

accompanied with a requirement for help for the dreamers. the argument to help the dreamers is this is the only language and culture they have known most of their lives, that does not hold true for supporting central americans trying to get no farther than mexico to have another country where they can enjoy the same language and culture closer to the united states, especially los angeles. we have encouraged them to come here by using the term "asylum." i wish we were clear and open about this issue of pushing for a permanent democrat voting block for permanent power. i would like to get a reaction. host: thanks for calling. senator jeff berkley of oregon spoke on one of the sunday shows yesterday and touched on all of this. here is a look at what he had to say yesterday.

[video clip] i think the president is determined to carry this forward until the democratic congress. it is not about border security. he is sitting on over $1 billion , 94% of what we sent them for border security has not bothered to spend. if you're not going to spend nine dollars out of $10 on an issue you do not care about it that much. this is politics, not policy. >> if you look at the question of the wall, this is something the president campaigned on. it is something the house has voted to approve funding for, it is something that half the senate has said it is willing to support. why are the democrats so insistent nothing for the border wall? why not give in a little bit? >> because we are absolutely willing to fund border security. the american people want us to spend money a smart way. $5 billion is a lot of money.

that is 650,000 children attending head start. it is 2 million meals a day for seniors. to spend it on a fourth century strategy rather than stuff that actually improves border security is something we will not do. democrats are> not going to agree to any funding to build a new border wall? >> that is correct. none. host: and as we were watching the clip president trump has tweeted for the first time this morning. virtually every democrat strongly supported the border wall or fence. it was only when i made it an important part of my campaign because people and drugs were pouring into our country unchecked that they turned against it. desperately needed rights the president. we had -- desperately needed, writes the president. we have debbie from south dakota. caller: i voted for a shutdown because i think it would be short-term.

hello? host: we can hear you. keep going. yes, excuse me. -- welly, we have people the people of this country voted for trump. people are bringing up the wall. might we ask the people that were born in the united states, my fellow citizens, and ask those agents putting their lives on the line, they do want a wall or some barricade that can be safer for them. host: thanks for calling. rebecca is on the line now. rebecca from ohio. good morning. caller: i think the thing that bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of the democratic senate and house that are talking. they want the american people to pay for things like their hush

money for their sexual immorality. look at our news across the world and watch the devastation that has happened in numerous countries because of illegal immigration. if they think our country is any different, i would have to say they are naive or they do not care. i think the government shutdown -- from the first time trump stepped into office, there has never been an ounce of support for him. they are vulgar when they talk about him. it irritates the american people. we do want peace, we want good jobs, we want our borders supported, etc., etc. the democratic party acts like they have no desire to do any of those things except with wings they want to do that make them feel all good. host: david in south carolina -- north carolina.

go ahead, please. caller: i agree with the shutdown could -- i agree with the shutdown. what will get them to work together is the senate and the house. what they need to do instead of getting their pay, every day the government in shutdown, they should lose a week of pay. that way they will get together and start trying to fix problems in the u.s. host: thanks for calling. general mattis, according to reuters has signed the orders withdrawing the u.s. troops from syria. they write the outgoing defense secretary has signed an order withdrawing forces from serial -- from syria. following through, they write, on a decision from the president that helped trigger mattis's resignation last week. the signing announced after trump announced you -- announced he would replace mattis earlier than expected, a move driven by the presidents anger at the

rebuke of the foreign policy in mattis's resignation letter. -- defense department said the order has been signed, a defense department spokesman said in an email that provided no details. i completely support closing down the government. press -- caller: the last president got on the senate floor and supported it and said you cannot let people support it. but now that they are losing more of their base, they are letting the illegals in here. ok, linda. holly at facebook has a different viewpoint. there is no reason to shut down the federal government unless we have a dire situation. trump has shut down three times for political purposes.

must unite and realize that taking idiotic stances are not good for our country. we will move on to michael in stamford, connecticut. good morning. caller: merry christmas. host: same to you. caller: thank you. shutting down the government is one thing, but around christmas time is even worse. people want to buy gifts and do this and travel. they cannot do it. agreed to this. he said he would sign this bill and all these people start talking about him. rush limbaugh, the blonde one, saying how he is caving in. look how shallow this guy is good -- look how shallow this guy is. wante saying democrats their votes. why isn't anybody coming to this country to vote for republicans? they can see how shallow they are. where all these great people that will come work for trump?

i do not see any people. bozo the clown. he has armchair. -- he has orange hair. host: let's hear from jim in maryland who supports the shutdown. caller: it has not -- it should not have come to this point. it is not a question. i cannot believe people would consider thinking about people coming into this country at well. it should not have come to -- at will. it should not have come to this point. talking about a shutdown. what else is going to be done? i'd do not see the reason why anyone would consider it. people cannot be coming in here. we cannot afford it. host: rob is in boca raton, florida. opposing the shutdown. good morning. good morning, thank you c-span.

merry christmas. host: thank you. caller: my understanding is there is a thousand miles on the border where be geographically impossible to put in a fence or a wall in the first place. logic would have it that if you are walking into this country and there is a fence or a wall in one part, you go to the part where it is geographically impossible to put the wall and cross at that point. the democrats have some common sense when they say that we need to use our technology and not fourthntury -- not century wall ideas. democrats are for improving the border security and all this rhetoric that we are not is rhetoric and it should not be forced upon us.

i want to say that when you have generals like kelly and mattis and the rest of them that are being fired and you have a real citye person from new york that cannot sit down, listen to what soldiers and military experts, people who have devoted 30 to 50 years of their lives to the military and know what they are doing and know the issues around the world. when you cannot sit down and listen to these people and take into account what they have to accordingly,n it and just to dismiss them and fire them, you know we have an unfit commander in chief who cannot sit. he does not know more than the generals. he knows so little about the world and about the military. it is pathetic and it is a

shame. merry christmas and i hope we all have a great christmas. host: politics in the nation. post has then story about secretary treasury steve mnuchin. he placed unusual calls to bank ceos and they may backfire. they write he startled financial analysts and economists sunday by issuing an unusual statement declaring the six largest banks credit to-- ample extend the businesses and households. he made the statement on twitter seeking to address an issue that had attracted little concern ahead of his tweet. the statement came hours before the asian markets were sent open, and following a sharp selloff made last week's -- worse for a decade. several analysts say sunday that his outreach to the bank and subsequent statements are likely to backfire and drive more concern. panic feeds panic.

this looks like panic in the administration. a chief economist suggesting you might know something no one else is worried about creates more unease. down to our last couple of calls. david from portland, oregon. good morning. good morning. i just called to say i support the wall. we cannotrtunate that get our politicians to work together. people thatillion have crossed the border. i wonder how they got across? host: anything else while we have you? caller: that's it. host: let's take one last call ie,m tom in err pennsylvania. caller: let me first answer the question it of why we have 22

million people in the nation. it is because republican employers that want the cheap labor wanted them here. that is why they are here. as far as that woman is concerned who said we elected trump. the people did not elect trump. college ofndered electors are the ones who elected trump. we have a gerrymandered system. i will switch back over to the republican side if the democrats get in power and do the same thing. i want to point out to people that one of the problems we have with this guy we have in the white house is that he only cares about himself. suspect there are far too many people that are on his side with that issue.

host: thanks, tom. thanks to everybody who call this morning on the government shutdown. we will continue to take your calls for the next couple of hours here on c-span. we are doing that, wrapping ourselves around these pro forma sessions happening around the house at 10:30 and in the senate at 11:00. we will if anything is said. we do not expect any action until thursday. we will continue to take your calls. this is government shutdown day three. we >> we look for your reaction to all of this tomorrow. in the meantime enjoy the rest of your day today. merry christmas and happy holidays. we will see you back your for tomorrow.