heritage foundation on the intersection of social issues like lgbtq rights, abortion laws, and religious freedom. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ good morning. it is tuesday, may 28th, 2019. congress is a way for the memorial day recess period. we begin getting your thoughts on one idea to raise taxes on america's richest families and individuals. it is called the wealth tax and it is the centerpiece of senator elizabeth warren's plan. we are asking if you would support or oppose the idea of a wealth tax. if you would support it, 202-748-8000. if you would oppose a wealth tax, 202-748-8001 is the number.

you can also catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj and facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good tuesday morning. you can start calling now on this question of whether you support or oppose a wealth tax. wealth tax differing from an income tax in that it is a tax on total assets, not just the money they make in any given year. here is how elizabeth warren lays out her wealth tax plan. she would levy a 2% annual tax on households with a net worth $1 billion.on to it would only impacted the $50 million and every dollar thereafter. it would levy a tax on households with a net worth over $1 billion for a total of a 3% wealth tax. it would hit 75,000 american households a year and yield

$2.75 trillion over 10 years. last month at the cnn town hall, elizabeth warren talked about the idea of a wealth tax. [video clip] >> i started several months ago started -- talking about a wealth tax. every dollarts on for the great fortunes above $50 million. your 50 millionth and first dollar, you have to pay two cents. here is the stunning part, if we ask the great fortunes in this country and, understand, this isn't about trying to be nasty or saying you have done anything wrong. you had a great idea, you got out and worked hard and inherited well, whichever one it was. [laughter] [applause]

but now that you have got that great fortune, spend a minute to remember how you got it. you build that great business or your ancestors did using workers that all of us help pay to educate. you got your goods to market using roads and bridges all of us help pay to build. you were protected in your factor prior -- factories with firefighters and police officers all of us help to pay and we say good for you that you have now gone this great fortune, but two cents, you have to pay something back so everybody else gets a chance. here is how the money works out. if we put that to scent wealth 75,000place on the largest fortunes, we can do universal childcare for every baby 02 5, universal pre-k,

universal college, and knockback of the student loan debt burden for 95% of our students and still have nearly a trillion dollars left over. host: that was elizabeth warren, also a 2020 presidential candidate on a cnn town hall last month talking about her idea of a wealth tax. we wanted to hear whether you would support or oppose the idea of a wealth tax. if you support it, the phone number, 202-748-8000. if you would oppose it, 202-748-8001. republican john barrasso, the senate republican conference chairman certainly one of those who opposes the idea. he spoke on the senate floor about his concerns about a variety of democratic tax proposals including the wealth tax. [video clip] >> far left democrats are touting tax the rich plans that would punish success. they include raising the top

marginal tax rate to 70%, -- tax the state attacks rate 77%. they will send our healthy economy careening over the liberal cliff. mr. president, the progrowth tax relief has produced a booming economy. hireeed job creators to more. we put americans back to work, raised the standard of living. thanks to republican tax reform, america is back in business. we must come together, we must do it now and embrace commonsense policies that will continue our progress. republicans have provided successful solutions. democrats are now promoting the failure and the horrors of socialism. host: getting your thoughts on

the idea of a wealth tax. the washington post took this -- will they had pay to lose? you think,ng what whether you would support or oppose a wealth tax. phone lines for those who support and those who oppose. dan on the line for those who oppose in north little rock, arkansas. caller: hello? host: go ahead, dan. caller: we don't need elizabeth warren. she has been caught in several lies. we need a republican again. host: any thoughts on the idea of a wealth tax? caller: i don't think we need a wealth tax, everything is going just great like it is. host: this is rene in maryland and would support a wealth tax. why, renee? caller: i support a wealth tax

because we have runaway capitalism. capitalism is the most beautiful system of economy in the world, but we have entered an aberrant state. incorporations were taxed in the 1950's rather well and they reinvented back into america and our infrastructure and what we have seen is a form of capitalism that i think very much models the russian model of oligarchs, these titans of power accumulate such massive wealth to their own personal ends and goals without reinvesting one dime back into the american workforce, back into our infrastructure. if you ask me, that is the most un-american, unpatriotic thing imaginable. we have seen wealth disparity increase from the time of ronald reagan to now and the separation between the hyper rich and the

working poor, of which i am, i am a person who speaks four languages, and honorable veteran of this country. i am now working as a substitute teacher after graduating with honors. i cannot make ends meet. i don't know about these jobs these people claim are out there, but in washington, d.c., it seems to be 5000 lyft drivers trying to make ends meet. this is not the america we deserve. this is a country built on equity -- fairness and equity. ends and talk about goals. what about these ends and goals. elizabeth ward -- warren raising the estate tax. here is where she would spend the money that she would raise from new tax programs on ,niversal childcare and pre-k

eliminating college debt $640 billion over 10 years. on fighting the opioid epidemic, $100 billion over 10 years. new debt relief for puerto rico, universal college. affordable housing, some half $1 trillion over the next 10 years. new funding for public land. would you be ok with those places as the ends for this new wealth tax? caller: i heard you. i think that is all formidable and a good plan to re-create -- creatingeing china high-speed trains while we rattle along in amtrak. our infrastructure is crumbling and we need to invest in education because i teach and i

can tell you these kids are brain-dead, they are lost in their phones and we don't have the resources. i was in a classroom teaching last week with no windows, i had to go through another classroom where to that classroom the materials i had to teach these upcoming kids were deplorable. 19 --e computers from the it takes 40 minutes to launch the computer. you want to talk about the opioid crisis, major institutions have rejected their money because it is dirty money. to worship at the temple of billionaires and oligarchs. host: we are talking about a wealth tax, whether you would support or oppose a wealth tax. it is 202-748-8000 if you if youd -- 202-748-8001 support that idea.

202-748-8000 if you oppose it. sydni in maryland would support the idea of a wealth tax, why? caller: good morning. i am speechless after hearing renee. i think you need to call him back and he needs to speak more and support someone publicly. i wish i could have heard him more. i was also listening to your other piece of the segment talking about how the capitalism and economy will cascade down. of course, if any of the capitalists making this $50 million are going to get taxed, it would not allow them to be able to donate to charity or utilize all the various tax .oopholes they do i am absolutely for it.

all these areas. i drive on the parkway from where i live into baltimore to work at a hospital. i work hard, i work 12 hours plus a day. it is tough and i have not gotten a raise in a long time. .he infrastructure, potholes our roads are crumbling. everything. it is pathetic. live in atalists vacuum. childrenonder why our are growing up in this generation and it is awful. i absolutely support it and i hope to hear far more about it from the other candidates. thank you. warren, who is known on the campaign trail for her idea of a wealth tax. other candidates with their own proposals that would tax the wealthiest americans in this country. .com, berniefrom vox

sanders with his plan to raise tax rate.- top estate it is higher than the 65% top rate he proposed when running in 2016. cory booker has proposed a 65% estate tax rate. a higher capital gains tax rate and applying capital gains taxes to pay for his baby bonds bill. those are a few other proposals from 2020 candidates. we are talking about elizabeth warren's wealth tax proposal, specifically asking if you would support and oppose. josh in washington, d.c. on the line for those who oppose, good morning. caller: i am on the fence about this. taxes oragainst higher more taxes, but we have so much

stuff we need to pay for, there has to be some kind of measure to do this temporarily. this might help. that would something be beneficial. i don't know. i don't know much about this tax, but we need to pay for things. we need to get out of debt. we need to repay our infrastructure. our national security depends on our economic security. if we can get the country solvent again, that will help the country. anything that will help bring us to that point, i am pretty much on board with even if it is a stopgap measure for like a decade or two. host: you said you were on the fence, one person not on the fence is a policy analyst at the conservative heritage foundation in washington, d.c. his concerns stem from constitutional concerns. the wealth tax differs from an income tax in that it is a tax on total assets as opposed to

the money they make in any given year. here is what joel griffith writes on a recent piece in the daily signal. article 1, section 9 of the constitution permits congress to impose direct taxes on individuals if they are equally portioned. adopt indirect taxes in the form of excise taxes on specific goods or transactions. it does not empower congress to adopt an asset tax. by definition, it takes only from the better off and possessing wealth or assets is not a transaction any more than owning a home is. seizing this private property without just compensation would clearly violate the fifth amendment takings clause of the constitution. joel griffith's concerns from the heritage foundation.

we will talk about more of these concerns on this rainy, gray morning. you can barely see the capital behind us and we are not too far . the lightning starting and you can watch that behind us as we continue to take your phone calls. in south carolina on the line for those who oppose the wealth tax, good morning. tax.r: i oppose this yous nothing but socialism guys are awful. and i am not in support of it at all. host: what about those other callers who are concerned about crumbling infrastructure or investment in schools in this country, that we need to come up with some way to fund those things? do you agree with those concerns and if you do, how would you fund those concerns? caller: they are a bunch of blind idiots.

they don't pay attention. they are just selfish people. they don't have any idea of what the real constitution is. it is against the constitution, .bsolutely you do not differ from the constitution. stay with the constitution. host: eric is next on the line for those who would support a wealth tax. why is that, eric? caller: good morning, erica. propose is not a tax, it is a jubilee. it would release all debt on american citizens. if we get rid of the debt, it is called slavery. if we get rid of the debt, we are able to do and pay for all this stuff. out studentee, wipe loans, home loans, get rid of all the interest. bring us back to the

wealth tax, which is the topic of the conversation. that mechanism of raising money for these programs. caller: like you said, you cannot just tax the wealthy. if we eliminate the debt, it would give us an economy that would boom. eliminate all debt, get rid of debt and let people start over. they can rebuild houses, they would invest in all types of infrastructure. --ilee, do the jubilee light jubilee like we are supposed to. all christians know about this and this is bogging our economy down. this is the blessing until we have not been doing -- we have all not been doing. we did not stop slavery, we allowed people to do it on their own. host: this is larry in maryland, the line for those who oppose this idea of a wealth tax. go ahead. caller: it is a bunch of capital

bull. i am against it. you have many wealthy people -- philanthropy. senator warren and all these other politicians, it is socialism, plain and simple. i am against it. it is foolish. ,ou make your money redistribution of wealth and they talk about china. same thing with oil, america has oil. it is no growth. -- deeprity is military underground military installations. all the stuff his plan, nothing is new.

to those that want tax, communist bull. florida,jacksonville, the line for those who would support the idea of a wealth tax. caller: good day to everybody. i am for a tax, but specifically for a tax of the churches, the wall street journal and christian science model says the church only gives 2%, 3% to the poor. the rest of their money goes to an invisible being, tax the churches who are free from taxation and free from ad taxes, the properties they own. you would have no debt. i know i will have people say on is inne the full -- fool god.eart, there is no

if a fool can figure it out, why can't they? first, i want to say elizabeth warren is a silver wayued liar and this is her .f chipping away at capitalism also, if the democrats would have built the wall, we would have saved all that money we are spending on illegal immigration. , the collusion with trump. all that money wasted. the democrats do nothing but waste our money on full list, ridiculous claims. their main goal is to do away with capitalism.

host: elizabeth warren estimates she will raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years through her wealth tax proposal, but that washington post story last week asks whether the wealthy will pay. in a recent washington post op-ed, lawrence summers is the co-author of a piece that appeared in the washington post, the former treasury secretary 2001, and economic advisor to former president barack obama from 2009 to 2010 and he writes about this idea of whether the wealthy will 2%ually pay that estimated on any assets over $50 million. a great deal of the wealth warren's advisers assume will be hit by the wealth tax is already

escaping the estate tax. there are those -- ways in which those competently advised that they can move assets to their children while avoiding gift and estate taxes and maintain substantial control. a wealth tax will not yield of the revenue proponents hope for and when it scorekeepers score proposals, their estimates will disappoint the advocates of the wealth tax. elizabeth warren estimating about $2.75 trillion over 10 years. in the piece in the washington post, their estimates much ifer, closer to $75 billion the wealth tax were to go into effect. we are asking whether you would support or oppose the idea of a wealth tax. 202-748-8000 if you support it. 202-748-8001 if you oppose it. gina in virginia on the line for those who support. go ahead, why? caller: good, john.

i was calling to say you had an earlier caller named renee and i am leaning towards elizabeth warren now just because of the out what happens with the wealth tax. i am leaning towards elizabeth warren now. i am an african-american woman and i know they said african-american women are going to carry the vote in 2020. i was leaning toward kamala harris until renee impressed me. host: what specifically sold you on it, gina? caller: everything he said and the order he said it. i am so tired of these talking heads saying the same thing over and over, so tired of it. this man needs to work for elizabeth warren.

i really believe that and i am letg to go on twitter and her know, make her listen to this broadcast this morning because he completely changed my mind. host: gary is next in cleveland, ohio, on the line for those who oppose the idea of a wealth tax. caller: good morning. i wanted to say i am 67 years old. i worked my whole life and i a poorver worked for person. it has always been a rich corporation or individual. i can't believe people would honestly think if we gave all this wealth tax to the congress and the senate or the u.s. government, that they would actually do something good with it. they are not going to pay down the deficit, they are going to spend it on whatever they feel like. this is totally wrong and one other comment, i do not call

this socialism, i call this a form of communism. the government has got to get out of the way of the people, that is what our constitution is therefore. the: this chart from washington post on where elizabeth warren would look to spend the money raised by the wealth tax and a few other tax proposals she is looking to institute if she were to become president, she would look to onnd 700 $7 billion universal childcare and pre-k, , $640ating college debt billion. universal college, affordable housing, $500 billion over 10 years, those are some of the main places she would look to spend this new revenue brought in through a wealth tax. caller: i can't believe that. i am sorry. i have watched politicians take money and say they are going to do something with it and all

they do is find extra ways to spend it. they are not going to spend it on the children. we have enough money being spent on the children. they are not utilizing the money correctly. we have a lottery system here in ohio, scratch off tickets, powerball. this money was supposed to go for the schools. i can guarantee you may be 5% to 10% go to the schools and childcare and things of that nature. they are using this money for god only knows what. get the government out of the way of the people and what they do. comments through facebook and twitter, the conversation happening there as it does every morning during this program. brian writes this is absolutely ridiculous, america is starting to fight success. richard saying i oppose any kind of income tax.

jason saying i don't support tax of any kind. and down on the line through some of our comments on facebook and twitter. you can join the conversation on twitter. it is facebook.com/cspan. on twitter it is @cspanwj. one more for you, we will show you more as we go throughout the morning. -- put that money in things that matter like infrastructure and health care and a better transportation system nationwide. you can join the conversation through social media or give us thell like diane did on line for those who oppose the idea of a wealth tax. caller: good morning. i have three points. we are talking about a 75,000 people. 100,000 people a month are .rossing the border

we're is the money going to come from for the new green deal? all the changes and structures it -- to structures in the united states, the switch away from profit producing gas and oil and all the other things in that package? and i would remind everyone that our congress has fought for months over $5 billion on the border wall. can't come to agreement on that, how will they come to an agreement on how to spend these massive amounts? i don't see it happening. i don't think they are capable of it.

host: paul blair posted this piece after elizabeth warren .eleased her plan what paul blair writes and brings up one of the issues you just brought up. paul blair writing a mass exodus of taxpayers could happen and leave no want to pay for the growing demands of government spending. the top 1% pay 39 point 4% of federal income taxes. if these people flee, they take with them the tax revenue. this proposal would harm economic growth, incentivize the investment of money overseas, and generate nowhere close to the amount of money warren's economic team estimates. i want to get your thoughts on paul blair's column. caller: i agree with him.

75,000 people is not a lot of people and they would have the means to take off. wealth includes everything, life insurance, everything you have got, it is like an estate tax except it is every year on the same property over and over and over again. i just see them leaving. i think it would be a simple thing to do and they will do it. ont: it is just after 7:30 the east coast. we are asking you in this first hour of the "washington journal" about elizabeth warren's wealth tax proposal. if you support the idea, it is 202-748-8000. if you oppose the idea, it is 202-748-8001. this is that 2% annual tax on

households with a net worth of $50 billion -- $50 million to $1 billion. we talked about the projections about how much money this would generate, how much revenue this would generate. elizabeth warren was on msnbc earlier this month and was asked about her wealth tax proposal. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> i get out and talk about a wealth tax, two cents on every dollar above $50 billion -- $50 million. they pitch that and all of a sudden, as a country, we can provide universal childcare, universal pre-k, we could pay childcare and pre-k workers professional level wages. we could do universal college, loanuld knock off student debt for nearly 95% of the people who have student loan debt and still have nearly $1

trillion left over. that is how you begin to rebalance an economy. it is not just working for those at the top, it is working for everybody if we could actually do that. host: senator elizabeth warren earlier this month. to get yourg you thoughts on the idea of a wealth tax. april in ohio on the line for those who support the idea. go ahead. caller: hi. i don't know whether in the end it would be the best idea, but in reaction to a few comments from this morning, specifically the heritageto foundation assessment that it would be unconstitutional, i --ld suggest the estate tax

i think the idea that on its face it is unconstitutional is not correct. i also think it is easy to dismiss taxation as something .hat drives those who have away i think it is important as we figure out what we are going to do about wealth inequality and it is an issue. not --re people who are they are experiencing a loss of what they knew and i think it is important to understand that people who are very wealthy are getting a benefit. if i have a billion dollars, i would prefer to have the ownership of that billion dollars or the assets that it assuredided a short --

to me. i don't want to be in a system where my cash or assets around by are simply taken fascistic form of government. i think it is important to remember when i have a great deal of wealth and that accrues to power as well, that i am getting a benefit out of being here in the united states or another democratic form of government. at the .3, if we look idea that everyone who has billions of dollars was making good decisions with it, what is the alarm over the china trade deal?

the alarm is the proposition that i think would have been obvious to a lot of people who do not have power and wealth, which is if you give over your method of doing something in a place where your asset ownership is not respected, meaning, for , you may find your ownership has been disrespected. i am disturbed when i look at wall street asking that we focus on fixing trade deals that they were acting on and probably should have known better about. instead, i think people out in the midwest, they are going to bring our jobs back. the idea is we are not going to bring that back, we are going to have our labor in some other place. in the meantime, we are worried about who controls the ownership

of our assets and one of the things i think that has been success ofant to the the united states is that we are a country of laws. we are not a capitalist society under our constitution nor are we a socialist society. we are a country which has a rule of law and if i am an owner of assets, whether that is an idea that is terrific or because i have a way of producing something, then i am better off if i have a set of rules that we that our to and i fear masters of wall street have failed to consider how important that is. it is in a bright embracing -- it isn't about embracing capitalism, it is about embracing the rule of law and

having someone join the wto and presuming their form of avernment, which is not representative form of democracy or a democratic republic is going to respect your ownership of ideas or capital is full hearty. host: before you go, and we have a lot of other cardi -- callers, who do you think you will be supporting into 2020 election? caller: i actually don't know yet. i wish there had been another -- i support the idea and i am undecided at this point. i am disturbed by what i would describe as an awful lot of attempting to brand things without actually thinking them through. i don't think the wealthy should be mislabeled somehow as bad

people. i also don't think we only have richbecause we allow corporations or people to keep them. should not have lowered from 25 all the way down to 21. the united states is competitive with other democratic places. i have not decided yet. host: thanks for the call from ohio. cincinnati, ohio is next. on the line who proposed those -- the idea of a wealth tax. ofler: i support the idea taxing the rich. we have seen ever since ronald reagan was in there, the lobbyists and the rich people every year have lobbied to get more, more, more. in giving more to the rich, they

have taken away from the middle-class. i have a nice that goes to -- ce that goes to public school in cincinnati and they have to make copies of a book they are reading because nobody has the money to buy books. they can't even buy books -- bring books home to do their lessons anymore. it is crazy. our roads are falling apart. niece for aor my loan to go to school. $87,000 for her to go to hampton university. it is crazy. when i graduated from high school, you could pay-as-you-go and then you have all this interest on the school loans. it is just ridiculous.

they never get enough money. thank you. host: a few more comments from facebook and twitter. matthew writing i don't have children, but i am glad to pay to educate them. any ideas other than raise or add taxes? roland saying i support a fair share to tax for the will -- for the rich and other corporations. @cspanwj on twitter. facebook.com/cspan on facebook. today, on the washington journal, this conversation for the next 20 minutes. at 8:00 we will turn to the idea of war powers and the presidency and congress. we will be joined by ivan eland to talk about his new book "war & the rogue presidency."

emilie kao will join us from the coming upoundation today on the washington journal. coming up today on capitol hill, congress is away this week at a memorial day recess. you will see pro forma sessions throughout the week, the senate expected to whole day pro forma at 11:30 this morning on the 11:00.ith a pro forma at you can see the storm passing on capitol hill. the rain has mostly stopped as we continue to take your calls on this idea of a wealth tax. want to hear whether you would support or i pose the -- opposed the idea. frank in tennessee on the line for those who oppose. caller: good morning. i don't believe it is going to work because throughout history, people have found ways to get out of paying taxes.

basically if they don't want to pay taxes, i would donate to a charity. that $2.75 trillion number , the expectation from elizabeth warren's economic advisers on how much she will raise, you don't believe that number? caller: i don't believe any number going after the rich. if i had the money, rather than pay into taxes, i would donate to my favorite charity and write it off on my taxes. there are loopholes to taxes and always have been. this harebrained idea the democrats are coming up with is basically going to turn this country into another venezuela. ridiculous.eal is they need to earn their money

and do some work trying to make this country great, not every other country. sending money to venezuela or all these other countries to help support them and not take care of our own country, democrats are getting a little bit off in left field. host: on whether people would actually pay a wealth tax and how it will be collected, one more piece on that. paul writes in the washington post last week to make the wealth tax work, elizabeth ,arren must revive the irs talking about major new investments in the internal revenue service. stacy in maryland on the line for those who support the idea of a wealth tax, go ahead. caller: absolutely. i definitely support the wealth tax. the last four wars were wars for

profit. ever since the terrible reaganomics, the middle class has been duped by all this propaganda that these -- made the wealthy people wealthier. people keep saying the rich will leave. i doubt that very seriously. there is not anyplace in the planet -- no country on the planet safer than the united states, no place in the planet that protects the wealthy more than the united states and that is what i wanted to say. i think the wealth tax is part of capitalism and we have given charity to the rich and we see the results of that, the deterioration of the middle class. host: you think the wealthy would fight this, but stick around if it was instituted? caller: i think they understand

of their money is not in the united states -- they are i wasng, most people -- really angry at bill clinton for nafta because most people knew china was one of the oldest civilizations, thousands of years of systematic oppression, that they were not going to change, it was just greedy capitalists that wanted cheap built thethey middle-class for china and now china is basically coming back for us. people think they cannot compete, they have -- they literally have four times the amount of citizens then we do. look at how large their military is. , alexandria, lisa kentucky, the line for those who oppose the idea of a wealth tax. go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead, lisa.

caller: i oppose it. the government cannot handle the money they already have coming in. our social security, they borrow from that, they borrow from every other tax that goes on, what is to say they are not going to take this tax and abuse this tax also? yes, the infrastructure is bad and we have all these other things going bad and we cannot blame somebody who worked hard , let's take it away and pay the poor. everybody should get out, everybody has hard times, i agree, but everybody needs to get out and work. we cannot depend on the government to feed us, clothe us. that is why we became the country we are, we are self-sufficient. we will all get in a hard time, but we pull together as a country.

when the government learns how to purpose their money and put it where it goes instead of borrowing peter to pay paul, which the government does more times than not, i think we would be better off. do you think we would be social security, medicare, medicaid? caller: no, i am not saying that. everybody needs help. taxes to theadd wealthy, you think that is going to help? they are going to keep their money one way or the other. they will raise prices on their products, they will not give raises to their employees. we need to stop and think, it is me, and give me, give that doesn't work. everybody wants to be well-off,

but we have forgotten the basics of get out, be a job, be faithful with your job, go to work on time, have good work ethics. this is why the country is the way it is today because we learned to fend for ourselves. i am for people helping each other. i am for all of these programs, but we cannot depend on them, the government. if we realize they work for us and i think we have forgotten this in this country, we vote them in and they get up there and they do things that i don't understand. i am not the most smart person when it comes to things that happen on the hill, but the things they do do not make common sense. from thanks for the call alexandria, kentucky. in gainesville, virginia, on the idea -- line for those who support the idea of a wealth

tax. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. before i talk about the wealth tax proposal by elizabeth warren, i want to respond to people who say the government should get out of people's lives. street,when the wall detroit, and all the major corporations collapsed and the u.s. economy was nose diving and housing was collapsing and private corporations were privatizing profits and -- if the government did not come in, what would have been the situation in this country ? for those who say the government should get out, think about that. if the government got out, some of you would not have a job. the second one is elizabeth warren is dead right, this country is rigged, big time.

trillion in $1.5 student debt. millions of people cannot afford -- in this country. in the meantime, these giant corporations for the last 20, 30 years are getting more and more a bigger part of the world. now people are getting less unless money to their pocket because of the wealth created -- it's going to a handful of people. elizabeth warren is not talking about taxing everybody, she is talking about a wealth tax for the superduper rich. the second thing i want to say, amazon,people like

microsoft, all the other great corporations which we should be proud of, jeff bezos was born in an impoverished country in the third world, would he have become what he was today? no. the way for corporations like that, smart people like that to become super of america.use they have a responsibility to pay back to america. just a few minutes left in this segment of the washington journal talking about the centerpiece of elizabeth warren's tax proposals. this is the wealth tax she has been talking about on the campaign trail including when she made a stop across the river from washington, d.c. and talked about the wealth tax. [video clip] >> the proposal for the wealth

tax, i am going to pick a part of this. my two cent wealth tax on the fortunes in this country, if we use just a piece of that money to forgive student loan debt for 95% of those who have student loan debt, that has huge support among democrats, independents, and republicans. in january of 2021 and we actually make that change, i think a whole lot of people have a lot more faith that government can work for the people. i am convinced. host: that was senator elizabeth warren earlier this month in fairfax, virginia, the wealth -- available on her website wealth tax she is proposing available on her website. households with net worth of 50 billion -- $50

million to $1 billion. for households with a net worth of over $1 billion, it would add an additional 1% annual tax for a total of 3%. it would hit 75,000 american households a year and yield $2.75 trillion over 10 years. getting your thoughts this morning in the five minutes or so we have left in this segment. andy in maryland on the line for those who oppose a wealth tax. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i can respect and agree with some of the points of those who are in favor of this tax have really have aut i question about this. isn't it better to incentivize to richest of the rich provide money to the government to support programs that are in

most need? i think with that would come a degree of transparency in government spending that i don't think exists today. i guess that would be a question for a follow-up discussion, but i know we only have a few minutes left in the segment. host: how would you incentivize that and get the wealthiest americans to buy into that? caller: that is a great question. i don't think i am smart enough to have an answer for that. i might suggest programs that sort tor donations, of the government and when the government -- when the federal government comes back and says -- [no audio]

host: let me ask you, would you put the national debt in that ranking of most need in this country? caller: i would not. host: why not? caller: i would not because i would start with the critical things such as infrastructure, homelessness, poverty. ways to improve. with that would come a lot of transparency requirements. the national -- was there something else you wanted to add? caller: with that number, that national debt, i think the government could spend its time and it's money it takes from taxes to chip away at that while those incentivized programs are

allowing them to fund other programs and that is really all i have to say. in west virginia on the line for those who support a wealth tax. caller: thank you, c-span. the first continental congress called it the sin tax. they passed to pay for the american revolution. firstfference between president george washington and refused toovernor tax.he sin washington had to send in the .roops

thank you for taking my call. host: do you want to bring that up to today and the wealth tax? thing. it is the same instead of calling it the wealth tax, the first continental congress called it the sin tax. we said we will call it the sin tax and only a sinner can object to it and this will pay for everything. host: this is romney, irving, -- texas.irving, caller: thanks for taking my call. the lady from kentucky that said people need to get out and work, people are out working and we are still living paycheck to paycheck while the wealthy keep getting their loopholes. i think a big part of the problem is you have a snake oil salesman fraud sitting in the

-- doesice that is a whatever he can to avoid responsibility and yet he appoints all of his rich friends to cabinet posts that don't have a clue, he just appoints them because basically they are rich. i think that is the bigger part of the problem, the person you have sitting in the white house. host: back to charleston, west virginia. kim is our last caller in this segment. go ahead. are you with us this morning? caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: good morning. i don't believe in a wealth tax, i believe in a smaller government where you set a base everybody.for if you are rich, you pay more. if you are poor, you pay less.

that is what i believe. host: host: do you think that should only be a tax on income or total assets? caller: income. on income, what you make, every year. host: our last caller in this segment of "washington journal." if you didn't get in, we will revisit this question at the end of our program today around 9:30 later this morning. stick around or come back from that -- we hope you stick around, especially coming up next. we will be joined by the author of the new book "war into the rogue presidency." we will talk about the war powers in the united states constitution, and later we will be joined by emily cowell with the heritage foundation on discussions about lgbtq rights and abortion law. trump on, president

memorial day yesterday addressed u.s. troops aboard the amphibious assault ship, the uss wasp, in japan. here are the remarks from yesterday. >> this memorial day evening in areunited states, americans concluding a sacred day of remembrance, reflection, and prayer. citizens all across the country came together to decorate the graves of our fallen heroes and to honor their selfless acts of courage. the citizens of our country are incredible, they love our country and they love you, you have no idea how much they love you. day,america's earliest americans have said goodbye to their loved ones, gone off to war, and stared down our enemies knowing that they may never ever return. memorial day links every grateful american heart in a

terminal tribute to those brave souls who gave their last breath for our nation, from concord to gettysburg, from midway to mosul. today, the unbreakable resolve of these heroes lives on in every american who wears our great uniform. , on day that you serve these rolling but beautiful seas, you honor their sacrifice, you carry on their righteous duty, and you continue their noble legacy. it is because of brave men and women who are willing to lay down their lives to defend us all. our freedom is earned through the blood and sweat and toil and sacrifice of great american patriots just like you. as we honor america's fallen warriors, we pledge our

unwavering devotion to all of those who serve our nation in arm. host: "washington journal" continues. host: coming off the memorial holiday, a senior fellow at the independent institute and the author of the book that came out this month, "war and the rogue presidency." the was the last time united states actually declared war on someone? guest: it was in world war ii, with multiple countries. and during the korean war we asrted to dispense with that truman decided not to seek a congressional declaration to the korean war, calling it a police action and doing it through the united nations which set a precedent which we haven't declared war since then. host: what is the reason for declaring war, and why did the founders give that power to congress? guest: they saw what european

ings dead, who at the time the late 1700s and even before would take their countries to war without the support of the people and the blood and treasure would fall on people and they didn't want that to happen, they wanted the body congress to declare war and the feeling was that unless it was an extreme self-defense situation, where the president could take offensive action, but even then they should declare war as soon as the congress could meet. the reason for that is you don't want a king or president, one person, taking the country to war. you wanted to be a vote from the people or their representatives. this did not preclude the original concept of a narrow conception of the commander-in-chief role to the chief admiral when the war started.

but as that factored -- host: what's the difference between a state of war and an authorization for use of military force? war, allen you declare sorts of laws get triggered. therefore in aumf is a lesser type of declaration, and that is what we have operating now, one for afghanistan and the one for iraq and there is no the a one inepeal afghanistan because it has been used by various presidents as far as the original resolution said, against the groups who or entities --1 meaning regimes -- who harbor

these terrorists. that would have been al qaeda, pakistan, and afghanistan. actually only afghanistan. then the taliban government at the time, the taliban was running afghanistan. but of course this has been taken to yemen, somalia, syria, libya, et cetera, into pakistan. host: what do you think should happen when it comes to either a new aumf, or do you think there should be a vote on the state of war? guest: the old one is out of date, and all of these wars are basically unconstitutional. resolution,ulf of, where richard nixon was able to start new wars in cambodia and laos, this one was very specific, it's just that congress didn't get around to or

didn't enforce it. they should have said maybe we need to go into somalia, into libya, whatever -- i would disagree, but if you did then you need to have a separate resolution because that's a separate country and it has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. we really need to authorize, whether you get a formal declaration or not, to get some sort of congressional approval for each individual war we are doing, and i think that might and some of the push to war these places, because we have all these wars running which george bush started and are still continuing, so they seem to be endless. host: war powers is our topic. this is the author of the book " war and the world of presidency." if you want to join the --versation, democrats, it's

you can go ahead and start calling in. the phone lines are open. he is a senior fellow at the independent institute, which is -- caller: a public policy think tank in california, but we have a washington office. i am in the washington office. promote liberty and a less interventionist foreign policy. the: independent.org is website. you use the return rogue and imperial presidency in your book -- explain what the differences. guest: imperial presidency was a term coined by iser solicitor in the nixon years to say that the president's power and foreign

power had grown so much compared to what the founders had envisioned that congress was supposed to be the dominant branch and the independent executive was created to counter the dominant branch and of course they were the dominant branch through the 1800s. was -- they called it the imperial presidency because the president had gotten so powerful in national security and foreign policy and he also said it was bleeding into the domestic sector by richard nixon. of course he coined the term, but the first imperial president -- war usually drives an increase in executive power, and i would say truman is probably the first imperial president simply because he didn't get a declaration of war. he also said it was in his inherent power to do it, whereas the constitution -- many people who have taken an originalist view of the constitution would say, well, that's not how the

founders envisioned it. that's the imperial perspective. and at the time, the institutional presidency with the national security act of 1947, it applied the military services for years in the war in the navy department were run separately. it put the military forces under the unified command of the president and created the cpi a to do secret wars without congressional or public approval in many cases, and then of course we also have the creation of the national security council. that institutional structure was created, relying on inherent power, which goes all the way back to hamilton, who works for washington. but washington never fully believed that, and he followed the congress in many cases. now we go to the road presidency, the cold war, the

imperial presidency went up in power. now we come to 9/11, and it goes up another notch. george w. bush was one of the few presidents, and maybe the only president, who came to office with an end goal of expanding executive power. during the first term said that the president had been diminished in vietnam, and congress had pushed back, but that had waned by the time bush had taken office. brought out this inherent authority during an emergency to contravene congressionally passed laws on torture. on americans,g they suspended habeas corpus for terrorism suspects, and they did these military commissions which aren't anywhere in the constitution at all.

they brought back those from world war ii in the civil war. went up another obama got although rid of the torture, he continued most of the other things that bush had started. that is why i say rogue presidency is another notch above imperial. host: a lot more to talk about from this book. the author is with us until the top of the hour. let's chat with a few callers. daniel is in pennsylvania, democrat. you are a first. go ahead. caller: good morning, and thank you so much for taking my call. i'm a low-level university teacher for a political science course. show,the topic of today's our country right now is at a i think we should

acide to either allow powerful person who has been accused of all sorts of malfeasance previously impeachable but not now because of a smile was her publican party, to crawl his way up to more power and declare himself a king, or uncle up some courage and impeach him, or otherwise i don't know america anymore. i thought we were on a slow but steady journey, given the problems caused by his electoral victory was just a minor setback. the continued support by his followers is really terrifying. his bullying attacks on our institutions of justice, normalizing racist propaganda, and the still unbelievable support he continues to get, after so many years of allowing

the sale of weapons to countries that kill innocent people in arabia,ncluding saudi threatening a sovereign nation like iran and going on a twitter rampage that they will suffer greatly, even though he backed up when they denounced his narrative. all these things lead me to echo the sentiment -- this is the most terrifying thing in my entire life. host: a lot there. guest: this far as the war powers ago, trump is inherently -- these new norms that have continued from the korean war on up, where we don't get congressional approval -- this has been a larger problem. the book does not necessarily dwell on criticizing trump, but

inrts way back in washington charts the treaty power and the budget power. mainly i think we have to focus the power ofhat the constitution, most of the powers of the congress, the executives have very limited powers but that's not how it has shaken out. thethis aggrandize with power of executives over the isrs is contingent, it contingent on congress reclaiming power. i think my book at the end gives recommendations as to how congress can replay -- can reclaim the power, and they have been equally negligent over the of not deferring to executives, simply because the

institutional incentive in the original concept was that you had three branches fighting against each other. the system was not designed for efficiency, it is to prevent tierney. congress has to push back on the executive and the supreme court is involved as well. that yout is one way recommend they do it at the end of the book? guest: i think the main problem over time has been that individual members of congress -- their incentives have differed from the institutional incentive of congress to push back on the executive and war is the primary example of this. in the first gulf war, many democrats were reluctant to go to war in 1981 with saddam hussein the first time, so they voted against the war. that was held against them in

the next election and some of them lost and the message was just go along with it. and it was a very successful war. the next one, they left democratic opposition to the war because the first one and that it,when they had to oppose they had their nose bloodied the first time. presidents will often use war to say it is patriotic to support it, and so the incentive itwe should vote to approve if we have the chance or if there is a smaller war and he or she doesn't come for a declaration of approval let's just let them go and that's what they've done with this authorization of military force, which has been used all over the world and abused by the executive.

congress has let them do that because they don't want to go on record approving all these other resolutions, because if the war goes south, they would rather do nothing at all. therefore their incentive to get reelected is different than the institutional incentive to push back. i propose isings that we further centralize congress so that the leadership can push back. time,sn't work all the because if you get one party in the presidency and one controlling both houses of congress, partisanship has over time, over the centuries, eroded power,isonian balance of the checks and balances. work in certain but if you have one or two houses of congress different from the president it probably will work.

i think further centralizing congress and their power and the leadership is probably one way to go. host: a major air force base in this country, philip, go ahead. caller: hello, thanks for taking my call. i'd like to get one thing straight, i'm not calling as a republican or democratic, i'm calling in regards to the presidency powers in the constitution. sir, are you familiar with the the commander-in-chief when military is called into actual service? guest: yes. as i mentioned, yes. it was formally thought by the founders as a more narrow conception of commander-in-chief, when after the war had started, congress declared war and the president executed the war. it's probably overseas, or defending the country.

but this was not the commander-in-chief of the country, it was the chief general or chief admiral of the armed forces. caller: that was my interpretation also, and when i read that in the constitution -- when the military is called into actual service, when there's a and anyion of war, president republican or democrat has always tended to take that further than what it actually meant. does notnow, congress exercise their authority in that regard as written in the constitution. do you think that is political cowardice on their part, of not checking the presidency on his part? i think congress -- in the title of my book, i say that congress has failed in this regard, and as i mentioned before, most of the power in the

constitution is with the congress. any executive aggrandizement over the years and centuries can be taken back by the congress tomorrow if they want to, but they don't do that, because they or bylitically scared, custom they have become timid. careful, we are going to end up like the romans when they went from the republic to the empire. they still had the senate and paid great respect to the senators, but the emperor had all the power. senators and congressmen still get a lot of respect but their powers and budget in treaty making has all been eroded over time. i think we need to look at that and we can't just say congress should do this because they don't. we have to improve the incentives for them to do that. we have a lot of people seeing this problem but nobody ever offers many solutions. host: minneapolis, minnesota is

next. lydia is an independent. good morning. caller: great conversation. to clarify my political position, i'm an independent, left-leaning independent, sometimes i think the term independent is for former republicans who don't want to say they are republican. i vote democratic party, green party, or independent. guest is making so many great points and the question of political incentive for congress to take back its power -- i have to blame the american people will, frankly, most americans have no idea of the history your guest some not so well, of how the war powers were eroded. they have no idea of post-world war ii intervention, covert and overt war, they have no idea.

one example today, you have honduras, guatemala, and el salvador refugees coming to our southern border. most americans do not understand the rule that the u.s. has played in overthrowing and starting military dictatorships, et cetera, and make common cause with drug cartels, and that those people are fleeing because of the long-term impact, what is called blowback, after 9/11. more of us have to take the stand that foreign policy is an election issue, and finally, to quit points, we have to disengaging that war is the most patriotic thing we can do. i find that really repellent, that's where we are. and the other thing i would recommend to your guest into your listeners, there is wonderful retired military guy

who has written several books in the last few years, he's a military historian. the book i would recommend is his book "limits of power," which i think would go very well with your guest. he has a new book about the history of the u.s. in the middle east over the last, i think, 50 years. he is i think an offer that would go very well with your guest. thank you again for raising this issue. it is really time for us not to destroy ourselves by making the mistakes of rome. our resources, can be spent at home as well as humanitarian aid. no one wants to do terrorism if you give them clean water. host: thanks for the phone call. guest: i think the color is correct. we intervene in various places in the world, she mentioned latin america, and we forget we did this and contribute it to the original problem and the war

on drugs certainly had a lot of problems in latin america and mexico in addition to the countries that she mentioned, increased violence and that sort of thing. the war on drugs has not been a declared war -- richard nixon ofrted it -- but it is sort a big, expensive government project which hasn't gone very well. many of our other interventions -- you can list them -- afghanistan, iraq, libya, have and probablyos made the situation worse in some cases. i think we do need to address that in many of these interventions -- none of them have had a declaration of war and some of them have not been constitutionally approved because they are still using the afghanistan resolution passed in

2001, and many of the people fighting probably don't even remember when it was passed. host: the book is war and the rogue presidency. the author is with us until the top of the hour, until 9:00. you can continue to: on lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. said one of, you your solutions for pushing back against the rogue presidency is to centralize more power in the leadership of congress. what about the criticism that guests have come on this program to talk about -- centralizing power in the leadership in congress is what's leading to more gridlock, that there is dealmaking among individual members and that it is making congress work not as well as it did in the past?

>> i would say that the first part might be true -- dealmaking is always done one way or another because the leadership always has to pay attention or they could get voted out. i think the rank-and-file always have some problems, but there's always been attention because members want to have seats in the subcommittee that they care about and make legislation or at least legislative proposals. there is a tension between the leadership and the individual members as to where the power lies. the question -- the problem is after we tried that with the proliferation of subcommittees after watergate, they said we've got to change this. unfortunately the so-called reforms were counterproductive -- these were mainly in the democratic party, these were rule changers within the democratic caucus.

trendontinued on the same in the republican years when they controlled congress, and the problem was the democrats, with all these subcommittees, everybody getting a slice of the pie, it created chaos. ad of course congress has collective action problem in the first place, meaning they have 535 members, one president at the top of the hierarchical executive branch, and he gives can usurpand he congress's legislative power by anding executive orders going to get executive agreements. andou have diverse decentralized congress. there are some advantages to

that, but my point in this book when you have that,, you really do have 535 centers of power. back thent to push institutional incentives, you have to be centralized that you centralized. centralizedd re- after the chaos in the 70's. host: is there a possibility that some point down the road that this re-centralization happens, that it creates a rogue speaker or senate majority leader who has too much power? perioddhat have been i history where the speakers of the house has been more powerful than the president. the founders intended congress to be the most powerful branch, and the executive would act as a check against them rather than vice versa.

speaker in the house and the senate majority leader can always be voted out, so it will never become to the centralized, like the executive branch is. but if you want to have push back, the leadership has the interest in mind more than the individual numbers -- individual members do. these days, we have members of congress would like to get on tv, who like to be on the subcommittee that does it specific thing so they can say, i introduced this bill, i am on this committee, etc., and that is great for their electoral fortunes, perhaps. it brings me back to appoint a forgot to address from the previous caller -- every problem we have ultimately originates with the public. because we have an imperfect democracy, by people can vote out their representatives and senators, but they really do, --

they rarely do, and that is because they think congress has very low popularity ratings, but their own congressman, they go, well, i will reelect him, he is fighting the good fight. maybe if you don't like congress, look at your own representative to see what they are up to and if they are contributing to the problem and maybe put them out. host: a lot of callers waiting for you. from ohio, on the democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted, how do you define the term warmonger. on somear the solution people's minds when so many people are going to lose? for example, take a look at [indiscernible] i think he is acting to aggressive about iran.

for sure, it is a come to get a situation would have but it is not the way he is trying to handle the situation? to throwdon't like around terms like warmonger but certainly, executives have instituted wars sometimes for political reasons sometimes just because they think they should be done and have a right to do it. even the bush presidents, both the other and the younger told -- both the elder and the younger, told congress that they would get congressional approval to go to the persian gulf, but they got congressional approval just as a courtesy. they didn't mainly for political reasons, but not because they felt they had to. in fact, they said, we can go to war without commercial approval,

which, the founders would roll that.n their graves at because, as i mentioned before, they saw european kings make decisions by one person to send a country to war. is case of iran unfortunately, a lot of threats are being aired and that can lead to a miscalculation. i think we have to be sure what .s going on here we also ought to be sure that we are not the problem in this particular case as well. host: john, republican from new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. you. we refer to the funders as wisdom, but when the constitution was written, we were a pimple on the world's you know what. if people like you had been in power for perhaps the last 200 years, certainly 75 years, what

would the world look like? , very frankly, it might be a better place. there is no reason that a genuine threat comes along like world war ii but you have to get involved. that.eople even dispute but certainly, when a big threat to the country comes along -- i would say, on 9/11, there was justification to do something. the problem is we go to these places without a declaration of war and war becomes something else than what was supposed to be. we were supposed to be taking out al qaeda and the taliban and we eventually got bin laden, we took out the taliban, but of course, we stayed too long and the taliban got fuel to have a resurgence because they were still in the country. and we don't understand a lot of places -- we would not want foreign occupation here.

so i think it is hard to say what would happen. we became a rich and prosperous country with very few wars in the 1800s, and very frankly, that was an era of congressionally-dominated government. i am not saying we should not intervene someplace, but this is ridiculous. by some counts, we have eight wars going on right now in various places, and most of them are not kosher as far as the constitution goes. i think we need to pay attention to congressional and approval within the constitutional framework. host: from pennsylvania, tina on the independent line. good morning. caller: i look forward to reading your book. i have several family members currently overseas fighting think the, and i

problem america is facing is that we are not teaching our youth the history of what we have been through. in my opinion, we have several congresspeople and senators who have a derelict of duty charge on their head right now and need to be ousted. we need to come together as a nation. . that is the only. way we will fix this and should not be that you are republican, i can't stand you because you voted for trump, or you are a democrat, i can't stand you because you voted for for obama. we need to be like we were on september 12, the day after, we need to be one. but we will not get there as long as we have congresspeople calling everybody racist, misogynistic, xina phobic -- xena phobic, it is getting ridiculous. we need to teach the younger generation history because right

now, we are repeating. i am tired of losing family members because of repeating history. don't start up and doing their jobs, they should not get paid. guest: we mentioned the abdication of congressional responsibility on the part of some of these wars we are fighting. it would be better off if we had a solid grounding because we can decide, we need to go here, or we should be over here, and it does not include you taking military action, it just gets the country behind it. the problem that you have, illustrated by vietnam, we had the resolution that lyndon johnson and richard nixon drove a truck through. and the war went on for too long and it was in won, then you start getting erosion of public support, and look what happens,

you end up losing the war, because public opinion, the center of gravity, was actually here in the states rather than vietnam. if you have a legitimate vote and you declare war, and you try to do that only when you need to, then people will rally and say, this is a war we really to. to go if you have sons and daughters, nieces and nephews over there , they have a better legal grounding and more supported home. host: mike's twitter profile says he is a retired air force member. he writes in -- my personal feeling is that war doesn't need to be declared in this day, such emergencies happen so fast it is impossible. contingencies occur so fast that you have to give her to react fast. how would you respond? guest: well, that was the original concept during the cold war. they said, you know, we have

nuclear weapons and the president has to be a way to respond really fast. the problem was that is under the constitutional framework the funders never said the president could not respond, it is just that he had to respond in a self-defense situation, only until the congress could reaction.something and that worked during the cold war too. even now, if the soviets, or russians, are on alert with their nuclear weapons, the executive does not have to get a declaration of war, he can defend the country by putting his forces on alert or whatever he has to do, even if he has to fire their weapons. certainly, if you are in a more protracted war -- and most of all wars are not defensive, they are overseas. and we say that it is a crisis. we have this much executive power, we have more crises. we are in a crisis now with iran, are we, or are we not?

hazy -- some of the u.s. actions, like getting out of the iranian nuclear deal, and sanctions,-imposing designating part of a foreign government as a terrorist organization, etc., some of these things muddle up the situation so it is not really clear whether this is an emergency. host: another tweet, of you are how long did congress which to declare war on japan after the attack of pearl harbor? guest: i think they did it the same day, december 8. in the modern age, back in the days when they had horses and buggies, we had a fairly big country right off the bat, only on the eastern seaboard, but from georgia to massachusetts, to either philadelphia or washington, it was difficult. it took time. now, we have planes.

congress can reassemble pretty quickly if it needs to. theink certainly, president, under the original conception, as i said, he has a right to self-defense. but i think we need to temper that. many of these wars are overseas. host: we have 12 minutes left with ivan eland. his book is "war and the rogue presidency." we have reggie now from apollo, pennsylvania on the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know why mr. ivan is not saying anything about congressman ron paul, congressman jones, both republicans who fought hard and voted against any authorization for iraq. they knew that this was an unconstitutional act, but i don't hear you saying anything. i heard you say something that if you feed the people, make

sure they have water, those are the arguments we heard from george w. bush about how we had to get into the war. our president is trying to glean that mess up. as they steal our technology, partnering with other governments and giving away our secrets. these arguments don't fly with water. i agree with you that we needed congressional declaration of war, but you better give credit where credit is due to people like congressman ron paul, a lot of people who saw the truth to this before i even saw your face. we don't need to be cleaning up everybody else's place. but you know what, i see the houthis of the run going after the saudi arabians. so if he wants to sell equipment to them -- they are going after the saudi arabians'airport, attacking them, i think the president has a right to help them defend themselves, if not

send our soldiers in. so, hey, we need to be sovereign. we need to take care of our own. less give away our trade secrets so others can steal our property and sell it back to us when you can't even because a craft crumbles-in- your hand and you cannot even repair something, steal from china. host: congressman jones actually voted for the iraq war and actually came to regret that vote and would often talk about his regret of that vote. he died earlier this year at age 76. guest: i am certainly not dissing ron paul or walter jones, i am a big fan of ron paul. it is good to see him washington when positions get hardened, this new information comes along, and walter jones, it did change his mind on the war, and

i commend him for that. i was not implying that there weren't republicans that opposed this. my only reason for bringing up the democrats was to show that they were scared the second time to oppose it, because they got burned the first time. it was not necessarily to congratulate the democrats, although, they were more -- there were more democrats opposing than republicans. but certainly, some republicans did and they are to be especially commended because of their party was mostly going , the with the president republican president at the time. host: nashville, tennessee on the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to hear the gentleman comment on this -- i am in my 60's and getting ready to retire, and i have been watching this for at least 50 years. it seems to me that when you look at globalization, with big corporate america -- let me say

this, i understand that companies want to upgrade in the cheapest way they can, but when you sell out your country for cheap labor to go to china, the roosters come home to roost in china with american businessmen. you took them to china and other , and courtesy of the trans-pacific partnership, that from chinaway of -- into indonesia, the philippines and taiwan. host: you are going in and out a little bit, rick. bring us back to the discussion we are having? caller: i want to know why we can't go, if they have done something that is wrong. they have attacked us in some way, whether it be cyber or military, why we can't just go and take your business with one button and come home? we would have been in japan forever if we hadn't dropped the bomb.

guest: a cyber attack is different. i am a big proponent of doing war to penalize russia for their attacks, because you need to deter other countries from messing with our democracy. it is a newfangled attack for some of us older people, but it is definitely an attack. the problem i have is, we use our military overseas to defend other countries or to defend always american interest, but it is never really specify. i would like for them to specify eight, and that is what you get with congressional debate on a war, why are we doing it? let us have a debate about it. those types of attacks are attacks. 9/11 was an attack on the u.s., we needed to do something about that. so it is not a question of, we don't want to defend the country. host: on the cyber issue and

brings up the question, should there be a separate declaration of a cyber war separate from the declaration of war? know -- the i don't president does have a right to defend us, but we don't know what is going on there. whether there was secret stuff going on, whether they actually had a better response than we thought, the last two presidents. if you go on an all out cyber war, who knows where it ends? well one country try to shut down the power grid of a country? mess with the financial system, whatever. i think you have to be careful with the cyber war. right now because it is so new, we're just saying, nobody was killed and people can be cyberer terrorism or

attacks by countries, because if you shut down the power grid, some people die from that. it is not an all out attack, i don't think it should make it be, but certainly, i think we need to certainly deter other countries from attacking us that way. i also think. we should be careful in attacking other countries. we attacked iran with cyber weapons in conjunction with, the israelis, and we can debate that point. but we have used authentic cyber-attacks as well. sometimes we forget the stuff that we do that causes issues, ,ecause we have a nationalistic understandably, most americans have a nationalistic view of our history. and it is not a totally objective view of any situation. but i think your question is a good one -- how do we deal with this? i am not sure we know yet because we are still experiencing the problem, but we do need some sort of defense or

capability of offense to deter other people. i would prefer defense. but defense can also get expensive. host: 10 minutes left with ivan eland. we will try to get to as many of your calls as we can. romney from maryland on the independent line, go ahead. caller: yes. question. that in today's world, things are happening so fast and for congress to be able requiresd, in due time reformulation, but not leaving of their, that is an example of empire. my other issue is the attack of iran, it is different from the nazi german situation where whole were behind the

regime, the nazi regime. but today's iran is different from 40 years ago. people are not behind the regime. so the problem is the regime. so the rhetoric of attacking iran does not make sense. and probably will never materialize. problem,ng rid of the to sanctions are getting that -- host: we have kind of address to the first part of the question, but they run in regime, would you like to address that? guest: he makes a good point. what you want to do is try to drive a wedge between the people and the regime. although, interfering in iran's internal affairs is fraught with difficulties in the first place. certainly, you don't want to cause a rally around the flag effect, that is where people who

don't really like their regime, but if our regime, they are thinking that it is our regime versus this external bully, that is what they would call it, they would support their regime. like many people after 9/11. many democrats and independents did not like george w. bush all happened, but what the country united and said, he is our president and these evildoers are trying to knock down our building. the same could happen with other countries. i think some of these underhanded policies and up rallying the other countries's lukewarm supporters around the government they don't like. sour policies are sort of counterproductive. host: one part of your book, you write about the war overseas often needs to the creation of the federal and domestic programs. things like the i.r.s., new tax loopholes. briefly talk about the history of how that effect happens. guest: was happens is during

war, you have to mobilize the economy particularly the big war. the key war was world war i, that is when the federal government took charge of the economy. they didn't convey we take over the economy but it managed the economy. interest groups and then come in and say, we did pretty well during that war, why couldn't we have the same regulations during peacetime? regulations a lot of times, the industry doesn't mind, because it keeps new competitors out. so you have this phenomenon that interest groups find advantage and they are organized, where is the general public is not organized. so the benefits of regulation in these people's minds are best of a causative theyost to the public -- concentrate the cost to. the public so when you have wars, you have interest groups that benefit and they want to continue on it. farm subsidies are a lot like

that. social security actually came out of civil war pensions. and that is a long story, but it did. so we have a lot of government programs at home. daylight savings time came out of world war i because they wanted to save energy. but now, we have a situation where we go on daylight savings time when we have 20 of daylight and we go on standard time, when there is no daylight. so it did not make any sense. maybe it did at the time, but all these regulations hangover. rent control in new york city and other places was caused by war, because there was a -- the war mast with the domestic market. so they had to say, we have one external so we have to put in another regulation because of the first regulation's distortion of the market. we still have rent control in

various places and it came out of that. many domestic programs came out of war, whether you like it or not, that is what they originated. host: from verizon on their independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. host: from arizona. caller: the non-function of our government is just out of control. that they spend 90% of their time running for the next election. the term limits would be the issue that is to be solved. a couple of terms should be more than enough. they deadlock, they get up there and they act like a bunch of dandy roosters, they are creating issues to be able to run on in the next two or four

years. i think it is total craziness. host: that was making in arizona. guest: she makes a point. congresswoman and senators and congressmen in the first term, they spend a lot of time raising money and campaigning on most continuously. unfortunately, re-election seems to be the most important thing for them, to the extent of that impedes other policy. it certainly does. i think that is a very good point, that the caller made. course, you can also vote out the people if you don't like they way they are operating. i believe in term limits, but i am not sure you don't need a constitutional amendment like you have for the presidency, or the congresspeople. i would like to say we didn't, but i think we need a constitutional amendment.

i would support it because i think it is good to have some limit on terms. host: where would you set the limit? by term limits for the house would have to be more, since they are only two years. the senate is get six years. senate,o terms for the and an equal number, six house.or the host: would you allow somebody to serve six terms in the house and two terms in the senate? 24 years in capitol hill? guest: you could restrict that, i suppose. as long as it has been voted on, the constitutional amendment. probably restricting that would be a good idea. because they usually move from the house to the senate, not vice versa. but certainly, 24 years is a career, i think, for most

people, most of her career. host: one or two more calls. cindy in st. joseph, minnesota on the republican line. caller: good morning. all that we ever talk about his war, war after war. fell, most ofme the european countries, the sovereign countries all felt and yet, we move into world war i, world war ii dubbed, vietnam -- world war ii, vietnam and today. the answer is not war, the -- theis to have worked answer is to turn to god. it is very simple to do, especially now we have three days preparing us to appease our lord, to upper these chastisements. look at what is happening to our country, to the land. we have so much distraction

going on -- destruction going on, yet our lord requires us to duke simple things, obey his laws and give him the sovereign power that he deserves. host: that is cindy in minnesota. i will give you the final minute and a half or so that we have. guest: i think the last caller there, we do have to much war and we have become accustomed to that but that is a fairly new phenomenon post-world war ii when we became a superpower. we felt that we had to police the world. first of all, we just on have the money to do that anymore. we had $150 trillion of unfunded liabilities, including federal state pensions, etc., then, of course, we have the national debt, a subset of that at $22 trillion. so i think we need to scale back what we do. and i think other countries need to take over.

people say, well, they want to do it. yes they will,. if we do everything for them, they will never do it. trump has a point on the those countries have a combined gdp that is greater than the united states, so they can do more. they will not do more unless we do less. we don't need to pull the rug out from underneath them and over a five-year. period, we will pull back from here, we need to concentrate on the rise of china. the middle east is one area where we ought to consider -- we don't have a dependency we once had on foreign oil, and even when we did, the market is the best way to do that. but we don't have that dependency anymore. do we need to be in some of these places? we don't ask that question. we just go, oh, the latest crises -- iran is sponsoring proxy groups that we don't like. are veryay, the saudis

rich, they can deal with iran. other countries that are friends, israel is the most powerful country by far in that region, coding they all do more -- couldn't they all do more? russia has a tiny fraction of gdp ofr tha -- of the the e.u. some of the things he is doing, does that really threaten united states in ukraine or syria? probably not. it may threaten the european countries but they have it the it.ewithal to deal with jump on, australia, they are rich countries and they can do more against china. host: his book is "war and the rogue presidency." ivan eland is the author. we always appreciate your time on the washington journal. you.: thank

host: up next, we are joined by the heritage foundation's emilie social issues like lgbtq rights and abortion laws. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: sunday at noon eastern, in depth is live with our guest from the hoover institute, on the campus of stanford university. , by the time people complained george washington, thomas jefferson, condoned slavery -- slavery had been there for centuries before george washington and thomas jefferson were ever born and neither of them fought that the office of the presidency had any power to do anything about it. lincoln was able to do something about it because he did so, not

as president, but as the commander-in-chief in a war. what he did apply only to people who were in rebellion against the united states. but there was no basis otherwise. announcer: he has written many books, including economic facts and fallacies, intellectuals and race, and discrimination and disparities. join the interactive conversation with your calls, tweets and facebook questions. watch in-depth live sunday from noon to 2:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. ♪ >> the house will be in order. announcer: for 40 years, c-span has been providing america with unfiltered congress of congress -- unfiltered coverage of congress. so you can make up the own mind. in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local

cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. announcer: washington journal continues. now. emilie kao joins us she serves as director for the center on religion and civil society at the heritage foundation. much of your work has focused on the equality act, which passed the house early this month. a 236-173 vote. remind viewers what the equality act purports to do. guest: first of all, i give for having me on. we believe all americans have human dignity. our concerns about the act is that it elevates sexual orientation and gender identity ideology to become a civil right. to codify that in federal law would amend the 1964 civil rights act as sex, sexual orientation, and gender

identity. our concerns are that there are equality concerns on both dies. causeurn would disagreements on things like gender identity and sexual differences into what would legally be considered to be discrimination, than it would cause punishment for people who hold a different view on such issues. host: house so? guest: there are about 22 states that have passed similar laws and we have seen a number of cases that indicate safety, and liberty concerns. for example, a homeless shelter in anchorage, alaska called in the hope center that serves women who have been battered, abused, trafficked, and they have a policy of keeping that shelter for women only. they are now being sued under a similar law in anchorage about requires them to consider identity.

so when a man who identifies as a woman came to the shelter and requested admittance, after he was in an altercation at a men's shelter, they could not allow him in because they wanted to protect the women in the shelter. so they paid for a taxi sent him to the hospital,, he had already been injured in his altercation, and now they are being sued. how there example of is more endangerment created by this law. -- women who have a legitimate expectation that if they go to a women's shelter, they will be with women, it is simply traumatizing for them if they have already asked you rinsed male violence -- if they have already experienced male violence, to be in the center with other men. creating access to any man who can simply say that he identifies as a woman, that is creating and a german to women

and girls. host: what is the path ahead for the equality act? guest: it passed in the house. i don't think it will come up in the senate. obviously, there is a huge cultural battle going on, i think it will continue to go on. i think what is happening in the -- we see a lot of laws in the states not only adding sexual identity to the nondiscrimination laws, but also bills about school curricula where it is mandated to have energy pt curriculum not only in that mandated to have lgbt sexiculum not on the in education, but also in the regular curriculum. host: we are talking with emilie kao from the heritage foundation joining us until the bottom of the hour. if you want to join the

conversation, on the democrats, 202-748-8000 is a number, 202-748-8001, and independents, 202-748-8002. you talk about the cultural battles. a democratic congressman, mark spokane, was on the program recently and talked about civil rights for the lgbtq community and how much of that has changed in recent years. >> what is interesting about this issue, before it was a political issue around discrimination for the ejb two q community, in wisconsin, my state, we were the first in the country to have a gay and lesbian civil rights bill. 1982, nine years later, for another state to do it, and signed by a republican governor. that is how different it was. at that time, it was not seen as a political wedge issue. it became one in later years. but with marriage equality the coming reality, and for people

to see that my marriage to my husband did not affect them, i think people realize that treating everyone fairly like they wanted to be treated was really what america is all about. reaction. and the idea of this becoming a political wedge in this country. guest: he said something i agree with which is that everyone should be treated fairly. the problem with me quality act, it does not -- the problem with the equality act, it doesn't treat people fairly. interesting the who think that marriage is only between a man and a woman, it treats them as basically the equivalent of a racist bigot. i think there are serious concerns about, for instance, sports, single sex facilities for women and girls, serious concerns among the medical community that the recommended treatment from the transgender community actually harms patients, particularly children.

the things that are being tried out on children now, experimental hormones, surgeries on minors and double mastectomies on 16-year-old girls, i think there are a lot of professionals who believe their rights should be considered as well. the equality act has led to lawsuits in all of these instances. .ost: explain the women's sports argument that is when we hear quite a bit on the floor of the house. he heard it during the debates to pass the equality act earlier this month. guest: for instance, there is a young woman in connecticut, a 16-year-old she excelled in track and field for the sometime. she came in eighth in her race, because the first and second. were taken by two males who identified as females. she says that it was everybodying because knows the outcome of the race before it even begins. girlsust believe that,

should be what to compete against girls. what these equality act would do is turn all women's sports into: sports. one woman who testified at the hearing for the quality act said it would lead to the end of girls-only sports. we saw this weekend at the ncaa championship, the 400 meter hurdles in the women's division it was won by a biological male. host: a comment from one of those following on twitter today he disagrees with you saying -- teaching creates kids what trends or lgbtq means is not the sexualization of children. guest: when you are talking about children in kindergarten being read a book about a sexual reassignment surgery it is incredibly confusing for them. that is what we saw in rockland county, california, parents objected to their children being read the story without any parental notification or

consent, or opt out. the fact is that sexual reassignment surgery, it is not really appropriate to talk to it.ergarteners about teachers will not give kids that age the full information about sexual reassignment, which they did not, but the subject of the went throughazz," sexual reassignment and experienced complications from it. these are complicated issues adults and far too sexual for kindergarten children. host: 202-748-8000 for democrats to call in 202-748-8001 for republicans independents, 202-748-8002. emilie kao of the heritage religionn's center for and civil society is with us until the bottom of the hour. son is up first from

raphael, california on the democrats line. good morning-good morning. caller:. i guess the hot topic is abortion. if you believe like i do that a person's life begins at conception, then that person is also not being treated fairly, as she was saying, about treating everybody fairly. i just wonder what are her comments on that. guest: i agree. think every american's life should be respected. the right to life is all. first freedom. unfortunately, again, they quality act could lead to abortion litigation where states -- stateshout without medicare or medicaid would be forced and sued to cover abortion expenses. we think it is a radical bill that imposes a sexual ideology upon the whole nation. host: how close are some of these lawsuits you mentioned surrounding specifically the equality act to moving to the

supreme court or to actually coming to trial? guest: interestingly, the equality act implicates title andof the civil rights act the supreme court has decided to take up three cases in the fall that address title vii and whether sex actually means biological sex or what the aclu and human rights campaigners are saying, sexual orientation and gender identity. the supreme court is going to rule on the civil rights act as it is written, but i think the argument from the aclu and human there ismpaign that already sexual orientation and gender identity implicit in the word sex in the 1964 civil rights act, undercuts all their efforts to pass the equality act to add s orientation and gender identity to the law.

host: on the democrats line, good morning. caller: your guest is not respectful to the very large number of people who are born prenatalthanks to issues, endocrine disruptors and dozens of conditions. a lot of people don't realize that the reason to have these , many times they me look male or female at birth but then, as they get older, their buddies start changing. they might wonder where they have infertility issues -- their bodies start changing. they might wonder why they have infertility issues. a lot of people are bornxxy or just x. there are many combinations. it could be from prenatal sm, it, prenatal chimeri

the microexplain , left behind by their siblings. guest: thank you. we do acknowledge that there are people who are born intersex, a tiny part of the population, for under 1%. we acknowledge them but we don't think an identity should be a category added to the civil rights law. gender identity is completely subjective and based on a person's own perception of their sex. sex is not just a feeling, it is a biological identity. we have structured society and created laws around the fact that sucks i'm a is a biological sex is in the fact that a biological fact. ruth bader ginsburg said we need to have single-sex facilities for women and men to this robe

separately, tests sleep separately -- to disrobe separately or sleep separately. host: next caller. caller: good morning. i would like to make a quick comment. i am calling about these schools that allow these issues to go on. it is confusing to the kids. most of the time, the schools will get sued, but i also think they should sue the parents who think it is ok for these kids to go through this. kao. you ms. guest: thank you, michael. the important thing to remember is that parents have the right to educate their children. that has been recognized by the supreme court multiple times. what these laws of the state levels do, when they impose sexual curriculums promoting a particular theory about

same-sexerism, and promoting them in history, science, mathematics, to children as young as pre-k, it is really allowing the state federalnt and the government to impose a sexual ideology on the entire country. particularly, i think, with the transgender theory, it is actually contradictory to what science says. children are supposed to be learning about science based on facts, not on political theory. host: daniel is an independent from north carolina, good morning. caller: yes. i think sex belongs in a marriage. it is best to be a christian, and a virgin when you get married. a man's body and a woman's body are reciprocals of each other.

i don't believe in homosexuality as being born with it, i think the mother wore pants in the family. host: that is daniel from north carolina. jim -- i think we lost daniel. jim in orange, virginia, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment on the topic at hand. this sexualation of deviant lifestyle. it is a simple fact, you cannot reproduce. it needs to be normalized in order to be recruited, and i believe they are doing that other younger and younger age, and it is sad. host: emilie kao. guest: going back to what the representative from wisconsin said, represented a -- , he said,tive pocan

my same-sex marriage does not affect anybody else's rights. but the issue we have with the equality act and other laws, is that it does affect everybody else when you have this political viewpoint taught in public schools all throughout the country that advances same-sex marriage and transgender theory. these are issues that parents should be allowed to address with their children at the right time, at a time of their own choosing and in a way of their own choosing. in colorado, we see an extreme law where moral viewpoints are not allowed to be discussed in the classroom when they discuss sexual orientation and gender identity. that is an exclusion of certain americans because of their viewpoints. host: having this discussion in the wake of the house passing the equality act, a 236-173 vote.

adding the definition of classes protected under the civil rights law to include sexual identity and -- sexual orientation and gender identity. one statement about the equality it that actid -- would protect all students from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, and ensure safer school environments where lgbtq youth can thrive academically. schoolt recent national survey said 18% of lgbtq youth experience of discriminatory practices. lgbtq-relatede issues.natory they had lower self-esteem and higher levels of depression. we wanted to get your reaction to that statement.

guest: i think every student should be able to study and to learn and grow in a safe and supportive environment. students -- no student should be bullet or discriminated against. but the concern with the law we it is that about, the act discounts the ft and privacy concerns of, a lot of it, female students. for instance, in public schools, where we see this problem occurring, even in kindergarten, there is a girl who was sexually assaulted in the school bathroom after the school passed a transgender bathroom policy. again, with no consultation to parents. after she was sexually assaulted, the school did nothing to address her assault. she ended up being the one who had to transfer to a different school to be in a safe environment. we believe that the best way for

communities to address this is for the smallest legislative the, the local communities, local school boards to figure out the solutions for their students, not for the federal government to impose a nationwide transgender bathroom policy. we see multiple lawsuits from students against their school districts, saying, we want safety and privacy in our locker rooms and bathrooms. host: does the heritage foundation get involved in any of these lawsuits? do you consult or are you a part of any lawsuits? guest: about this we will comment on the lawsuits, but we don't do litigation. host: what do you do at the devos center for those who are familiar? guest: we promote life, marriage, and religious liberty. we work on religion and society. in addition to our commentary on what the supreme court is doing, we provide research and education to congress and to the executive branch. host: about 10 minutes left with

emilie kao this morning. heritage.org, if you want to check out her work and the work of the devos center on religion and civil society. loretto in cleveland, ohio on the democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning, and good morning, america. this is a hot topic. i think the heritage foundation is going a little too far. kids need as much education as they can get about everything. it is better to know them not to know. dealing with these kids who are transgender, those who are gay or learning that they are gay, they do need protection, because just like african-americans we could not go to school. we could not" because. of our skin color. we had no control over our skin

color, but people were hating cause of that. church and state -- there is a reason that there is a division of church and state. . some people want to put religion in schools no, no, no. church is for religion. sunday. during the weekday, is math, science, social studies. you got to learn something. no prayer in school. host: loretto in ohio this morning. guest: i would agree with loretta that schools should teach the facts. science, the facts are that mileage is of sex. biologyis -- that sex.e basis of we see a rising rate of gender dysphoria in this country, and that is a real concern.

debate in thee medical community about the best way to treat gender dysphoria. many physicians say that parents and medical physicians should pursue watchful waiting, allowing the child to become comfortable with their biological sex. which many do, if they go through puberty, if they don't have hormonal interventions before puberty. . 80% to 90% actually become. host: comfortable what about those who don't become comfortable. guest: the statistics show that when used start the child on the path of sexual reassignment starting at age four, and that eight with puberty blockers they almost, always going to cross sex hormones, and then on to surgeries. was you get them on that path, they are almost 100%, statistics show that they will continue. host: if you pursue of watchful

the students who are still not comfortable in the sex they are born in. guest: those who are not comfortable with their sex, there are two ways it can go. they can continue to go with talk therapy for their gender dysphoria, or they can choose the path when they are adults of surgeries. one of our big concerns is that minorsers are being -- are being given surgeries and hormones. we don't think they can give informed consent over these drugs which will ultimately sterilize them. eight-year-olds are being given cross-sex hormones. they were not mentally well-informed enough to be able to consent to these powerful drugs that will lead to their infertility later on in life. lou, on theillinois, democrat line. caller: i am straight, and have often wondered about the

definition of sexual orientation. is in that it thought process, and if so, shouldn't thoughts be private? guest: thank you. of our concernrt with the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity legal like race, is that we have seen a discrimination on the basis of race throughout our history, starting with slavery and then a jim crow. and was illegitimate for society to have separate water fountains, or separate parts of the bus where people -- for people based on their skin color. but it is not the same thing as sexual orientation, which is in part based on conduct and gender identity, which is completely a self perception. having separate bathrooms for males and females is not based that people will

identify as transgender are inferior, which is what racial supremacy says about blacks, that they are inferior. we think equating something like gender identity or sexual orientation with race is an illegitimate comparison. it is a wrongful comparison. host: five minutes left. you mentioned that one of the things you do at the heritage foundation is track major supreme court cases and comment about them. remind folks what the piece cross is and what that will decide this term in the supreme court. inst: that piece cross linda's broke, maryland is a cross that honors world war i veterans -- the piece cross in maryland.sburg, it is a symbol of the valor and sacrifice the soldiers made in world war i. the cross was a symbol of the of soldiers

throughout not only the u.s. but also in the battlefields in europe. when american soldiers were buried there, they would often put across on their grave. so it has historic significance. right now, the supreme court is deciding on whether or not to accept the contention of the association that it is an establishment of religion. the american humanist association wants of the cross down. our contention is that american history is full of religious symbols, not only the cross, but also other religious symbols, like jewish or muslim symbols. arlington cemetery is full of religious symbols commemorating our war dead in our servicemembers. pit places like arlington andtery are also protected cared for by government, and we would hate to see all of those symbols be host: are there any tea leaves

you are reading into this? thing was clear from several of the justices, the establishment clause is very on workable. differingwildly decisions based on that test. it's hard to apply, it is very specific. areasare challenges into that are personal perceptions. what is the lemon test? >> we think it's a lemon. it's an old case that has been establishment for a long time. host: good morning. caller: i have a two point

question. 80's there in the were news articles that did we had little girls with , also young male children that were growing breasts. that was due to some of the hormones in different other agricultural products. those were put into it. host: do you know anything about that? thet: i'm not familiar with hormones in the food products. i think it goes again to the issue of hormones being dangerous for children.

they are at a developmental stage. in addition to the side effects of sterilization, they have other side effects like decreasing bone density. that's why they are very dangerous. one of the main concerns we have it'ssexual assignment is based on a very important study about what happens to people after they went through sex reassignment. the rate of suicide went from 10 times to 19 times. this was after the sex reassignment. theseere considering transgender policies. host: one more call for you. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. youheritage foundation, guys fight for one religion in general.

if somebody has islam or hinduism or satanism tries to have social changes based on their religion, would you support that or fight that? that's what the piece clause is. the church of satan are fighting against it because their religious icons don't seem to be acceptable on public land. that's my only comment. host: we will give you one final minute. guest: the best way to defend religious freedom is to defend it for all. that's what the heritage foundation does. cemetery, there are 50 different religious symbols that service members can have on their graves. the american humanist association. they have a symbol.

there is a wide variety of religious symbols on the graves at arlington cemetery. when you have freedom of religion, you protect all of those symbols of the religions and our soldiers, both the history of our country. director at the heritage foundation. you can see her work at heritage.org. we appreciate your time. next, we will return to this question we asked at the beginning, would you support or oppose a wealth tax. the phone lines are on your screen. you can start calling in now. we will be right back.

>> the reviews are in for the president's book. it topped the new york times new and noteworthy column. from the new york journal of books, it makes a fast, engrossing read. with graduations and father's day fast approaching, it makes a great gift. read about how presidential historians ranked the best and worst chief executives. the lives that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, the legacies they left behind. it is now available as a hardcover or e-book today at www.c-span.org or wherever books are sold. watch commencement speeches all week on c-span.

holly at king's college in york city. lauren underwood speaks at north college. remarks at boston university law school. with ellen to generous at tulane university. watch commencement speeches tonight at 8:00 on c-span. watch online any time at c-span. c-span radio free app. >> the complete guide to congress is available now. contact and bio information about every senator and representative, plus information about committees, governors, and the cabinet. handy19 directory is a spiral-bound guide.

for $18.95.opy "washington journal" continues. where we began, asking about the idea of a wealth tax. it's the center of a plan to raise trillions of dollars over the next decade for new social programs. this is how it would work according to her website. the wealth tax would levy a 2% tax on households with a net $1th of $50 million to billion. there would be a 1% additional annual tax on households worth $1 billion. hitprojects this would 75,000 households per year and

yield $2.75 trillion over the next 10 years. she said she wants to spend that money and from other taxes on new social programs, including childcare and pre-k. eliminated college debt, 640 billion dollars. universal college, $650 billion. charts are from the washington post story about the wealth tax plan and asking the question if the risk -- which will play for that and -- land. .f you support, (202) 748-8000 if you oppose the idea of a love .ax, (202) 784-8001 we will take this to the end of

our program at 10:00. i feel that in the country where you earn that amount of money, you need to give back. that would be one thing. secondly, we can't afford to educate our children and give them early intervention. it's ridiculous to think that we can't afford that. nobody needs to much money. nobody needs a whole lot of money. people are starving and others have hundreds of millions of dollars. host: where do you draw the line on too much money? why anybodyn't see needs more than $5 million. host: is that where you put the wealth tax?

the 50 millionth and first dollar. caller: as you go up, a little bit more percentage. i think it's all ridiculous. what goes on in this country when you have money versus when you don't have money, it's time for a little equality. joey is in river falls, wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. can you hear me ok? i support the idea. for all ofommend your beer is if they haven't viewers ife so, -- they haven't already done so, watch the movie "inside job" which discusses the repeal of

the glass-steagall act under the clinton did ministration. last fourtum for the decades or more of deregulation increasingeet and wealth inequality, it's the central issue of our time. i think it's a bipartisan thing that everyone should get behind. this is steve in colorado, he opposes the idea. caller: throughout history, there has been a pattern of people who said others have too much. historyng way back into , nations attack one another to

take wealth from one another. we also have a transition in history where we started to recognize that ownership was not only important, it was supported for a lot of reasons. taxation can be looked at as taking wealth from others. to a certain point, it is good. as the lady mentioned earlier, she was for this and it was the socialistic view. my feeling is that at a certain just, it really becomes taking it from another person. some people could call it stealing. the real question becomes where does this line lie?

when you asked the question do you support a wealth tax or not, i think the question is what is the line you want to draw? where is it? should it be a percentage type thing where it affects everybody. maybe there should be a minimum. anyway, the major point i'm looking at here is should it be? your emphasis on the line. host: thank you for the call from colorado. we are asking about the idea of a wealth tax. it's the centerpiece in elizabeth warren's tax plan. you could spend the money on student loan debt relief, making college more affordable.

she spoke about those issues and the idea earlier this month at a university,ge mason just across the potomac river in virginia. >> here's how i see this. tax,roposal for the wealth , if we used just a piece of that money to forgive student loan debt for about 95% of those who have it, that has huge support among democrats, independents, and republicans. come in january of 2021 and we actually make that change. lot morepeople have a say that the government works for people. host: differing from an income

tax, the total assets of an individual, the assets they own it, not just the income they gained over the course of a year. that has some people concerned about the constitutionality of the idea of a wealth tax. signal.the daily this is what he writes.

these are some of the concerns about the wealth tax, whether the wealthy individuals would pay a wealth tax or choose to move their assets overseas and whether it could be collected if the plan includes new spending to increase tax collection capabilities when it comes to the wealth tax. onwant to hear your thoughts whether you supported or not. we are next in springfield, massachusetts. caller: good morning. i support the wealth tax. part of it is because i believe

it's democratic to want to give back. people forget that during the industrial revolution, we were at our best when there was a 70% to 90% tax. tides lift all boats. i don't understand people being afraid of retribution of wealth when we already had it. 82% of the tax breaks just went to the wealthy. that hurts the middle class person week as can't afford to do anything. that $50,000 doesn't help or hurt the people who are already wealthy. it is been happening for years, the lobbyists, big oil, they've

been extracting money from the middle class and giving extreme benefits to the wealthy. some people think about is patriotic. when you have all of this wealth, wouldn't you want to give back to the country that help to get all of this wealth. i bring up the industrial revolution. 17% differencea between the ceo and the worker. now we are at 300 less. we are already a democratic socialist country. our military is a form of socialism. public schools are a form of socialism. privatizeich subsidies for oil, pharmaceutical companies that have their patents.

the middle class is getting pinched. host: this is robert in mississippi. caller: i'm here. you want me to talk? host: go ahead. taxer: i'm in favor of the and also i would like to increase the tax limit up to what people are actually earning to some reasonable limit. also, through the tax information, we might learn something more about what people are doing with those millions of dollars with political influence. does that make any sense? host: that was robert in mississippi. we've got about 10 minutes left today.

hourent our previous half talking about social issues. we mentioned supreme court cases. we neardecision day as the end of the term of the supreme court. some news out of the court on a couple of social issues, these tweets from bloomberg news. the fetaltated disposal law in indiana. it requires fetal burial after miscarriages. that law gets reinstated. the supreme court has rejected an appeal, leaving intact the pennsylvania school district transgendereding students use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.

decisionsplenty more coming. back to your phone calls on this idea of a wealth tax. george is in tennessee. it simplyoppose because it's not her money. any kind of special tax on a certain group of individuals above the present tax code is a dangerous path. what are they going to do next? they want to give free things to people. why should they be limited on how much they make? i don't understand that. -- why isupport the that? caller: i definitely support the

wealth tax. i would like to say a few things can turning the tracks structure as it is. this wealth tax is going to put back moneys that have already been taken. if i hear a lot of collars saying it's unfair. i think the people who really support the wealth tax are people who mainly needed and the people who oppose it are the people who are benefiting. comment, the estate and gift tax was based on wealth. all of the money assets and they paid taxes on it. , it's beenn depleted. , theepublican party wealthiest people in the country , they wanted that to happen.

not even pain that. it's almost been eliminated. i don't know if people are for millie with that. this would start to put back some of those moneys that of been taken away. host: as we discussed, her plan for attacks on assets. -- theyte tax would be plan to tax the wealthy. bernie sanders has a proposal to tax rate top estate 77%. the sanders plan would set it at tax thattop estate existed from 1941 to 1977. het is higher than the 65% suggested in 19 -- 2016.

booker wants higher capital gains taxes. this is part of his effort to spend new programs to raise funds. we are getting your thoughts on the wealth tax today. floor, hen the senate spoke about his concerns about all of these tax proposals and why he thinks republicans should oppose them. touting tax the rich plans that would punish success. rate.ould impose a 2% clearly, democrats of taken a sharp left turn. their policies will send our

economy careening over the liberal cliff. republicans actually has produced a booming economy with millions of new jobs and larger paychecks. we have put americans back to work. we raised the standard of living. reform, america is back in business. we must come together. we must do it now. we must embrace common sense policies. we will continue our progress. republicans have provided successful solutions. thecrats are promoting failure and the horrors of socialism. host: that was the floor of the senate last month. we've got about five minutes left in our program. nate supports it in maryland. ahead.

it's very interesting to listen to those comments that are being made by some of the republican congress people. this discussion, the whole thing was physical responsibility. after all of the other reduces in taxes, the federal debt has skyrocketed. the economy crashed under those same administrations. that everything has been booming and is great for everybody is just propaganda. in thoseg he said comments has no basis in reality. as far as bernie sanders and raising the estate tax, that needs to happen. that was taken away as a result of getting rid of

the estate tax, that part of the reason why we have this redistribution of wealth to the wealthiest people. even if we take into account the income tax, there were always gimmick for them not to pay income tax. host: you mentioned the national debt. there is the real-time tracking of the national debt, $22 trillion. about 60,000 -- $67,000 per person. because the top 20% that a lot of people don't realize a 87% of the taxes in this country already. the lower 47% a nothing.

obese government. of course the elizabeth warren west to raise taxes. you have to feed the beast. we need to start cutting government programs and cut government employees that fill those jobs that the private sector can't fill right now. population are functional illiterate. we need to start taxing campaign contributions. there are billions of dollars right there. host: this is mike in florida. he supports the wealth tax. good morning. in my mid 70's.

i grew up in the 50's and 60's were the highest marginal rate was between 70% and 90%. that was in effect up until reagan. we never heard republicans complain about it. i don't understand. they say the top 20% pay 80%. they own more than 80% of the wealth. they should pay more. i don't understand what the problem is. when i grew up, there was no problem with the higher marginal rate. the economy was booming. host: that's all we have on the washington journal. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern. have a great tuesday.

>> later today, a discussion about iraq and tension in the middle east. that's at noon eastern on c-span. app.n on the c-span radio watch commencement speeches all week. republicanssouri senator josh holly in new york city. speaks inerwood oakland, california. attorneyy u.s. delivers remarks at boston university law school. may, 2009 4 back to comedian ellen to generous. h