collect -- a few clear things. we should never have data collected without our consent and we should know where our data is going. after cambridge analytical, facebook should have immediately notified people when they were transferring their data. they didn't do that. people should have been able to inquire any point with facebook what was happening to their data and that wasn't there. if you pass the basic protections for people online, you would avoid things like the cambridge analytical scandal. >> arch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. morning, a roundtable discussion on the week ahead with a reuters correspondent and a box court -- vox correspondent. and later a discussion on the pros and cons of raising the

federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ""washington journal" is next. ♪ host: the house rules committee meets to discuss a rule on a resolution finding william barr and wilbur ross in contempt of congress for failing to comply with subpoenas. you can watch that hearing at 5:00 eastern. you can listen live on radio app. this is the washington journal. joe biden unveiled his plan for health care calling for fixes to the affordable care act, but not fully supporting a medicare for all type health care plan. it is the affordable care act we

want to talk to you about and ask if it should be fixed, and it, or there should be a move to single-payer. if you say fix the affordable health care act, 202-748-8000. if you say end it, 202-748-8001. if you say move to a single-payer system, call us at 202-748-8002. tweet us at @cspanwj and you can post on our facebook page, about 800 plus of you have done so at facebook.com/cspan. president,ormer vice joe biden, who comes in with his health care plan -- preserve the most popular parts of obamacare and build on them with a government run public insurance option. the plan, which the campaign says will cost 750 billion will

be paid by reversing some of the trump administration's tax cuts. effectively do away with private insurance and shift all americans to government run health care. in introducing this health care plan, the former vice president put out a video on his campaign website. here is a portion of it. [video clip] >> i believe we have to protect and build on obamacare. best way to lower cost and cover everyone. i understand the appeal of that care for all. it means getting rid of obamacare. i am not for that. stoodproud of the day i there with barack obama -- never before has anyone been able to do that in the white house. over 100 million americans with pre-existing conditions got protection and most important, piece of mind.

i understand how hard it is to get that passed. starting over makes no sense at all. i knew republicans would do everything in their power to repeal obama care. was afordable care act historic achievement for president obama and if i am elected resident, i will do everything to protect and build on it. that is joe biden's approach. we want to know what the best approach is and let us know about it. .f you say fix it, 202-748-8000 if you say end it, 202-748-8001. and if you say single-payer system, 202-748-8002. you can post on social media sites as well. all of this is going on while several legal challenges are taking place. on the phone to join us and give --the latest, alex alstyne

-- could you update our viewers on where it stands legally as far as these challenges? guest: last week before the fifth circuit court of appeals, one level below the supreme big challengeas a to the affordable care act and this has been growing -- brewing for more than a year. attorney generals filed a lawsuit arguing the entire affordable care act has to go. a lower court judge in texas agreed earlier this year and that challenge has been working its way up through the courts and could eventually go to the supreme court and there are a lot of different ways this could shake out. many different outcomes. it won't just be throw out the entire affordable care act, they could take out just the consumer protection, just the protection

for people with pre-existing conditions. they asked that the court hearing if it could only be thrown out in some states. they could send it back to the lower court for more clarity. there are so many ways this could shake out. host: for the judges that heard, were there suggestions or inferences what they were dealing -- thinking when dealing with this question? guest: it was a panel of three judges and two of them were nominated by republican presidents. one of them by president trump and one democratic nominated judge. the argument seemed to skew very much against the affordable care act. that was the impression of my colleague in the courtroom. this was a panel of judges that was open to arguments from the republican states and the trump administration which joined republican states in arguing

this case and arguing against federal law, which is unusual. there is a lot of hope among conservatives that this court and potentially the supreme court would be willing to strike down the aca even though they don't have a plan in place to address the chaos that would ensue. host: what is the strategy then ultimately this leads to a reversal of the aca? guest: politically, this has been good for democrats. it was one of the main reasons democrats won back the house, which was pointing to threats of the affordable care act in court and past attempts in the house to repeal the affordable care act through legislation. voter anxietyat help democrats and they are leaning into it hard going into

2020. that said, it would be mass chaos if the court were to throughout the entire affordable care act. not only would tens of millions of people immediately lose their coverage, but all kind of reverberations through the health care system would occur and folks who get insurance work would be impacted as well. host: some of them may be having a change of heart and figure out some ways to give an alternative rather than see an end altogether? guest: they are split and it depends on the state. in some states that have representatives in congress, lots of people defend -- depend on the affordable care act and some republican states expanded medicaid. those representatives are eager to see their constituents hurt

that way. while they are still opposed to the affordable care act, there is a lot of anxiety around this said,t because, like i there is no plan in place from the administration or republicans in congress. host: this is alice alstyne with with politico.in host: you heard the vice president's perspective. we term to you -- turn to you when it comes to the future of the aca. whether you see a single-payer system put in place. you can post your thoughts on twitter and post on our facebook page. harold in new jersey on our line that says end at. you are up. good morning, go ahead.

have pute never should it in the first place. let's rule for common sense right now. there should be catastrophic for all and common sense for everybody else. we should stop having the third-party pay for everybody else. we have done this wrong for so long. congress should get to work and finally do it. nancy pelosi said to find out what in the bill, you have to pass it. it was ruled by committee. every committee had the right to change on a daily basis. together.y poorly put only ahy limit it to

catastrophic type of health care, you say, and the affordable care act altogether? why would you keep that option? caller: because i love people and nobody should go bankrupt because of catastrophic. that means everybody gets the opportunity. i do approve of committees along the way. i love our system the way it is right now. we have social workers who do a great job. instead of having the lawyers and i would say we should write legislation in such a way that social worker at the local hospital would be the determining factor to find out -- host: let's go to chris in wisconsin, advocates for a single-payer system. good morning, you are next. medicare am not for for all. i am for more of a european

model. right now, i am on medicare and oury $4000 for supplementary insurance to medicare. deductibles and everything people are paying today are way too high. we have great health care if you can afford it. you would not expand your type of system for everybody being put into that system? caller: i would not. i would go to a european model. host: how does that work in your mind? caller: the government pays for .t, yes if you go to sweden, denmark, england, whatever, their costs are way less. got hurt friend who working overseas and would you believe they had to medevac him

to germany? he had surgeries, everything, $8,000 total bill was until they got him back to the united states where he had more surgeries. what we do is wrong in this country. host: let's hear from freddie in california who says fix it. tell us how. freddie in california, you are on, go ahead. caller: it is funny. president trump basically is going to take -- host: you are going to have to stop listening to the tv. go ahead with your thought. caller: president trump just wants to take something away because obama did it and obviously he did not like what obama did because he is african-american and has a problem with that. host: you are calling on the line to say fix the aca. how would you do so?

i am not sure how to fix it, but you don't take away something you don't have a plan for. being onecare for all of these terms generally thought --as it would move the u.s. as the intermediary between patients and providers and health care transactions. you heard the former vice president talk about a public option and you hear others talk about that as well. public action plans would allow middle income working age adults to choose a public insurance plan like medicare or medicaid instead of a private insurance plan. when it comes to the aca, would you fix it, end it, or advocate for a single-payer system? int: let's hear from mark new york says end it. hello. caller: hello.

the aca should be ended. the government has no business in providing for health care. the more competition there is in the private marketplace, the better health care will be and the more an expected -- inexpensive health care will be. in newrom michael kensington, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. the main issue -- i agree with the last caller that it should agree -- lookse i at laser surgery. nobody pays for that. yet, such an intricate operation thehigh tech operation and market forces have made that

procedure affordable for most people. and lasix surgery. i think you can do the same thing in all areas of medicine gave you would just make them accountable to market forces and make sure people -- that there is competition involved. then you can have it catastrophic for people that --ht be an issue for people all previous conditions should be covered. i think there are other ways to do it like have a special pool and those kinds of things you would have a special pool for people with pre-existing conditions and that would help alleviate some of the problems in those areas. host: it was during a hearing on the affordable care act taking a georgia-- jody heise of

talked about what he saw as failures within the system. here are some of his thoughts. [video clip] >> the president is not defending a failing policy, a -- look at the numbers and it is clear, obamacare does not work, is not .oing to work insurance premiums have skyrocketed, skyrocketed under obamacare. deductibles have soared. coverage networks and access to providers have shrunk. in some cases been eliminated. insurance companies have fled

the aca marketplaces. rural hospitals suffered. i have an -- a number of them in my district and they have suffered tremendously because of obamacare. many rural hospitals have actually closed their doors and yes, there are people who have benefited. i am not going to deny that. of course, our panel is full of them today. i appreciate the testimony from our witnesses, our panelists today. for every person who benefited from obamacare, we can find tons of folks who have been hurt from it. host: here is bob in texas who advocates for a single-payer system. caller: i sure do. thank you for taking my call. it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out if you do away with the prophets -- prophets, the -- if you do away

cost of profits and the youiums, i don't see why have to -- if you do away with him, it will calm down, the price will come down. host: ruthie in texas says fix the aca. you are next. caller: hello. donald trump is a -- host: we will leave it there. the aca is what we are talking about. would you like it -- like to see it fixed or ended? you can let us know on the phone lines. if it is that single-payer you are advocating for, 202-748-80 3 2. there are about 800 plus comments on this question

.private health insurance companies care too little about the solution and too much on bottom lines. christie says end it, but keep pre-existing conditions. free-market health care with deductibles.d high insurance go back to the way it was before the disasters in the -- thefordable care act increase in taxes will more than --e up for monthly payments those are some of the comments on our facebook page if you want to post their. next.

caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am fine, thanks. caller: being in health care for -- seeing what is happening from the inside out as well as what is happening for a lot of the reasons people have already brought up. it just -- it has been a policy workinglly has not been as it was set out to do. host: when you say from the inside out, give me an example. caller: the quality of care just hit in alone has taken a my view and experience. field andn the

multidiscipline areas of health care, 1 being sociology, i look at it objectively and you talk to health care workers and you see it from the patient level as well where the type of care demand it puts on thehealth care industry and intricacies involved here -- before it was even rolled out, it put a lot of stress on the health care industry. york mary elizabeth in new who advocates for a fixing of the aca. hello. caller: good morning. how is everyone? it.ink you need to fix i have been thinking and i talk

to people and i say, whatever happened to blue cross, blue shield? your premiums, your health care was covered by forand you were responsible 20% of your cost and you had a certain period of time to pay .hose fees if necessary rememberingused to health care and insurance companies became profit centers where as previously, they were health care centers. i think there should be some kind of compromise to get rid of the profit out of health care. doctors need to be paid, hospitals need to be reimbursed. it does not need to be any profit. i would like to suggest that we

look at the old blue cross, blue shield that used to be in every state. the 20%responsible for left over. host: frank in florida also says fix it. caller: good morning. i never understood why people could not talk about the good things obamacare does. it grants coverage for pre-existing conditions, medicare expansion, and an expansion for children so they can stay on their parents policy . when you think of health care, you have to look at the immediacy of helping people as quickly as you can. the way you will do that is through the plan where you make the subsidies available like you do for corporate and agriculture and then you help people get access to the health care they

need. it is the quickest way to fix this. host: a lot of people point to cost overall for the aca treat how do you respond to that argument? caller: why weren't they pointing to the cost when we and a war in iraq afghanistan and these other countries? everybody else and you can go to all these countries, why can't you help people here? host: how would you then address the cost related to the aca? caller: we are going to have to subsidize and go ahead and people may have to make sacrifices. there may be more of a tax involved. whatever we have got to do to subsidize a people get health care, that is the move we have to make. host: one of the people commenting on the state of the aca was the democratic senator from west virginia talking with reporters at talking about the idea of making repairs or fixes

for the current system. [video clip] >> i did not think it was the perfect piece of legislation. i don't think anybody think that was perfect, but we have to be fair and we tried to fix this in .est virginia before this in rural america people say i don't want to be a burden to my family. they don't want to put their family and financial collapse and they will say whatever the good lord wishes and his will is what i will except. we can do better than that as americans. so we have. if insurance companies are going to play god with my life or my mother or my grandmother, we are going to be able to have insurance and they can do it for the first time. 800,000 west virginians have a pre-existing condition.

for the first time and we all know now science have shown basically an addiction, a drug addiction is an illness. illnesses need treatment. for the first time people are getting treated, for the first time -- if they can put their life back together. this is what they are throwing away. i have children with pre-existing conditions. it is unbelievable to say these families -- i am so sorry, we cannot offer it to you because you are too high risk. i have an elderly population that for the first time, they are getting prescreened on an annual basis and getting care to -- care of by medicare. all these things we talked about, i have never seen a piece of legislation that could be repaired. i told the president myself, why don't you be the mr. repair care? we will call it trump repair care. i am happy to support, but not

trump throw it away just because you made a political promise because we can do better. you aree comments seeing when it comes to the aca, if you want to see them and other things, go to our website. if you go to the box on the screen and type in affordable care act, you will see everything available on our network that we have taken in on this product -- topic. megan advocates for single-payer. hello. hagan, i am sorry. caller: this is dr. thomas hagan from tampa, florida. i believe obamacare was wonderful. clinton's and truman all --empted

medicare for all as a beginning, but eventually we need something more effective than that. the v.a. is effective and the military has a socialized medical system. one thing you can get rid of witches costing $80 million to fraud toion a year is medicare by physicians. --they were paid a salary they would not need to be the

money balloon, they would be doing it because the patient needed it. host: do you practice medicine? caller: i am a retired colonel from the army medical department. host: when it comes to the cost, is it the main concern about the medical community being paid for the services they provided and how that could be affected onto different types of systems then we know now? caller: a lot of doctors are doing tests and procedures they do not need to do. host: diane is next in chelsea, michigan says single-payer is the way she would like to see it. hi. caller: thank you. i just think with medicare for all is what i would prefer simply because a system is in place. it is running, it proved itself. we just need to make the pool

bigger. instead of tax breaks to millionaires who will invest it, why not take some of that and put it in the medicare pool and make sick children and americans healthy so they can go to the doctor. the reason they are withholding this or playing around with obamacare, they could fix it right now if they wanted to, if they can't, it is even sadder. listening to insurance companies that make contributions to their campaigns. just make the pool bigger and everyone would be covered to go in when they are sick. we would be a healthier nation. they say medicare is a privileged -- privilege earned. what grandmother or grandparent would look at their sick children and say i earned this privilege.

parents and grandparents don't think like that. host: let's hear from rosemary in pennsylvania. all.'t like medicare for i think the affordable care act should be fixed. we are not sweden, we are not canada. our population is much larger. don't want to end up like the veterans administration where people had to wait online and seen by doctors. with joe mansion, it is . sensible idea -- there was a driver who had to drive a cab to supplement his income. host: from joyce in ohio next also says and advocates a fix

for the aca. hello? caller: yes. on socialder person security. i had $133 taken out for medicare. i pay a supplement right now of 240. if medicare does not pay, they don't pay. i also have to have a pharmacy plan. i want to know that if medicare for all comes about, does that mean if we don't have any private insurance coverage, are pay toibly eligible to the hospitals that are private insurance would pay? is that possible? host: that is joyce in ohio. from twitter, it is a response health care is as

efficient as the dmv. i am not interested in paying more for less again. the aca has been a failed experiment, get rid of it. cassie sang a person should not be put into bankruptcy if they are ill. prices are too high. i am medicare for all. repeal it and let the free market work, states can start their own health care programs. employers have the incentive to offer good insurance to keep good employees. john is next and advocates for single-payer. tell us why. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: yeah. theink with regard to affordable care system, i think it was best benefit, those marginalized groups who cannot get health insurance through an

employer or maybe they don't qualify for medicaid or medicare . that is a lot of people those at risk the most cannot get decent health care. even for my own self, i get health care my employer and in the past year, we switched health care providers and now i lost the doctor i had been going to because they don't take my new health insurance and i might be getting a new job in a couple weeks where i get yet a different health care provider. i may not even have the dr. i have now once again just because of the fact we have a single-payer system. if i may, with the person who mentioned we are not sweden or canada, you are right. we have far more people population wise, but we also

have 10 times the amount of gdp and money we have in our coffers. ends up going back to -- host: caller: thanks for caller: thanks for taking my call and c-span -- caller: thanks for taking my call and thanks for c-span. in the original plan you had a mix between government and competition. it was originally set up so that waseen less than 133% -- going to be medicaid or the expansion and from 133 to 400 was supposed to be payments that the government would help with people paying and above that was probably people who had it through their employer. came in and immediately they got rid of the individual mandate.

the individual mandate, people were supposed to pay into cover those with pre-existing conditions because you had to cover the cost of pre-existing conditions. they started not doing the expansion through different states and started picking it apart immediately. we could have had the money to 26 and over, pre-existing conditions, they started taking it apart as soon as it was implemented. the system could have worked, but they made sure it would not. int: that is caroline baltimore, maryland, who says when it comes to fixing it, bring back the mandate. if you advocate for single-payer, tell us why. -- callthe phone lines on the phone lines and you can post on social media.

republicans are looking at this back and forth, particularly the legal challenges. this is the story saying for consideration of legislative action, it is an about-face from a few months ago. arguing it would have no chance of passing congress particular with a democratic-controlled house. thorny debate on how to reform health insurance, a central component of obamacare to focus on finding ways to reduce health cost. protect people-- with pre-existing medical conditions. senator mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader on what could happen to the aca.

[video clip] >> no matter how they rule, it will go back to the supreme court. if thisld decide particular provision is unconstitutional, the whole bill falls or follow the language of the bill itself which said various parts of it are severable. i think in the important thing for the public to know is nobody in the senate is in favor of not covering pre-existing conditions and if that were under any of these scenarios to go away, we would act quickly to restore it. and washington, d.c. who says he advocates for single-payer. caller: hi. . am actually a doctor imr resident and i work at the v.a.. i spend about a third of my time there and a third of my time at public hospitals and private hospitals. i want to make a reply to the

female caller who said wait times are longer at the v.a., that is false. there are versions of socialized medicine in the united dates qualityrate at the same as the other hospitals that we have both public and private. the other thing i would want to say is the comparison to sweden saying we have 38 million people and they have some fraction of that, you can look at the german system, japanese system. you can still make the comparison with other large countries that have gone to single-payer or symbol -- single-payer ask -- single-payer-esque systems. in the united states, i would have basic health coverage for -- some would be run

sort of private insurance. researchlth policy analyst at princeton's woodrow wilson school of public and international affairs talks about this idea for a public option, she writes a public option could save americans tens of billions of dollars in health care cost each year. the government could use the market power to force down prices. a public option would be far cheaper than to administer than private plans and marketing costs would be minimal or nonexistent and there would be lowerthe public options premiums would induce competition from private insurers, lowering premiums across the board. the government could spend less on exchange subsidies for low income households or use savings to cover low income families and raise the threshold for subsidy

eligibility. if you go to the wall street journal, their website, you can find it on that and in the paper version as well. from texas, this is michael in crosby who says fix it. hello. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i am a veteran, so i go to the v.a. for my treatment. it is great. i don't know why people say they have to wait in line. they provide me transportation and i can go to the emergency room and they can isolate the problem. get me to a doctor and i feel great. host: you are saying you could do that within a day? caller: yes. if i hang up with you right now and call 911 or call my veterans, they will come out here and get me and take me to the hospital, take me to the emergency room, stabilize me --

i will see a doctor within a day and get my prescription. i am happy, feeling good about myself. host: how long does it take you to get an appointment in the v.a. if you have to bypass the emergency room altogether? caller: i can get an apartment the next day or right now. if i pick up my phone and say i need to see a doctor, it might not be my primary doctor, but i will see a doctor in less than four hours. host: is this under tri-care, you see a private doctor? .aller: yes, they have private if you cannot see -- be seen fromn 20 days or whatever your primary mental health, they great.u -- it is the cost is so large with the military, the prescriptions are

low. let's hear from eddie in columbus, ohio morning. caller: good morning. the for single-payer and two main things would be to pay for it -- there are so many middlemen with the private insurance industry and all the attenuating cost. single-payer would eliminate a lot of those and the second thing would the decoupling health insurers from the employer market and remove the tax exemption. host: keep going. caller: that would pay for the single-payer's, sorry. in georgiais next who says fix the aca. caller: yes, thank you. i want to commend the man from texas who called about the v.a. and said what he said.

that kind of word does not get out like it needs to, just a lot of talking points about how things are not run right and it takes months and weeks and people die. i am not saying those situations don't happen. it happens everywhere. blue crossought up parade i have been going on is -- my life would probably be a lot better today. i suffered a stroke. 100eight -- i put on over pounds. the financial aspect is not good. the type of treatment i needed blueot in the coverage of

-- if i lived in another state, i could have had medical oratment under the medicaid care, whichever one it is for people who don't have anything or even in another state, the treatment i needed was covered in the affordable health care policies and so forth, but not through blue cross. if i wanted to have the surgery, i could've paid for out-of-pocket. if i would've run into any kind of health issues after the surgery complication wise, blue cross would not have covered me. they would have put it back. all this stuff -- people need to really think about this and not listen to all these stupid talking points people put out. quit talking about switzerland and let's focus on -- in sanet's go to joe

antonio who says end it. hello. caller: good morning. its ownllapsing under weight. there's a lot of people who get --lth care for u.s. citizens automobile insurance drop because those people coming in do not have insurance. host: what would it do for americans if the aca was taken away? caller: there is plenty of money for people who cannot afford insurance and are sick. we don't have money for freeloaders, plain and simple. from denver, colorado, also says end it. caller: i am a veteran and i go and whata. and kaiser

they are trying to compare is private to public. v.a.r is better than the and they are trying to make us pay for 10%, the bottom 10% of the population that are freeloaders and they are taking our freedom to do this. this top 90% that work hard and pay for our health care, we don't need the government to tell us how to spend our money. you should be able to pick where you want to go and vote with your money. if you were to give these people this freedom, you would have somebody like bernie sanders kindhim -- tell you what of health care and give up your freedom. we work hard for our money and we have liberty to do so. host: what would you do for those who currently get coverage under the aca if it is taken

away from them? caller: there is a small number. most of this market is private right now, this has not happened, we don't want this to happen, that is why everybody is happy. employers go through private. private does it better. the only people that do it right in the public sector is the v.a. and we are veterans, we fought wars, we are a small number of the population. host: we had a previous caller talk about the v.a. system saying it works well, he can get in quickly if he needs to. would that be your experience, too? caller: yes. now that trump made some changes, it is way better. it wasn't always that way. there were waiting lines and it was worse, but it got better deals. because of good does -- another

problem the government addressed to that you are addressing now is prescriptions. prescriptions is a separate issue. this is health care providers intentionally driving up prices and basically robbing us and this is something that is being taken care of right now, but that issue with drug prices can be taken care of in the private market, with -- which it is right now. there is no reason for a public health care system and look at germany and japan, they have less freedom. host: we got your point. when it comes to the topic of how those who need the health care are responding to the current position, there was an oversight hearing in congress and one of the panelists was a single mother of 4 who suffers from diabetes and talked about her experience. [video clip] >> maintaining preventative health care through routine visits has allowed me to continue to treat my diabetes without fear of being turned

away. access to health care should be a fundamental human right to all people. there should be no choices when it comes to health care or housing. during this administration, i frequently wonder what would happen if i lost my coverage and what would it mean for my children? in the event i had to return to private practice, would i be able to afford my insurance without my subsidy? what i be lucky enough to last without the treatment i have received? this is not a partisan issue. this is a what happens to families without health coverage issue? why are we touring -- turning back the hands of time issue? of should a single mother four children be forced to choose between housing and health care? we cannot keep parents healthy enough to raise their children. i ask you and urge you all, both

sides, do not take away the coverage from 20 million people. do not return to the health crisis we endured before the aca. in florida whoen says fix the aca. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a retired master sergeant from the army. useunately for me, i can either system, public or the v.a. system and i think that is the problem. we need to change, we need to change the name from obamacare. we need to change the name. that is what they did for affirmative action, we still have affirmative action, they just changed the name. it became a term that was fixated to the politicians. let's change the name of it, but let's not put a fixture of what

.t costs to keep a person alive each state could raise their sales tax a minimum and each state could be accountable to make sure we fix it state-by-state instead of trying to make it a federal task. let's charge the states. let's go back to the states. there is a plan in each state. host: terry is next in washington. advocates for single-payer. good morning. caller: good morning, yes, sir. the guy from texas that was in the military, he is right on. it is funny how all these other countries have universal health care and we are the only one. i just don't see anybody trying to switch over to what we have got. these ripoff insurance companies

have been doing us in forever. i don't care if it is health care. i have car insurance, health insurance, we should go to a single-payer just like they do in europe. host: what convinces you that type of system would work here in the united states? toler: look, we are supposed be the greatest country in the world. you tell me we cannot fix it so that it cannot be just as good as what they have got over there ? all the money we are spending for these wars and everything else, yes, we can fix it. we should have universal health care and just like i said, you don't see any of these other countries arguing and fighting like we are doing on the phone right now talking about health care because they have universal health care over there and we need to get rid of these ripoff insurance companies. have a nice day. in texas advocates for single-payer.

caller: hello. my mom was a radiologist at the v.a.. she always worked really hard in all this stuff about the v.a. people are saying is not the truth. health care could work just like the military works. we have the best military in the world. host: when you say what people are saying about the v.a. is not true, what do you mean like that -- by that? caller: i never heard of my mom not tearing -- taking care of people, she worked really hard. she retired when she was 85. she loved the v.a.. if we can have the strongest military in the world, why can't we have the best insurance in the world for everybody? everybody pays for it just like they pay for the military. host: you heard joe biden's defense of his health care ideas in the video from earlier today. matt pfizer for the washington post takes a look at how other republicans -- --

warren and sanders firmly in favor of the medicare for all plan that would significantly eliminate the role of private insurers. in a sign of how widespread anxieties about medicare for all have become, bernie sanders devoted his time and remarks at a recent campaign office opening in west des moines to address specific concerns critics have raised about a single-payer proposal, hinting at the political risk, he warned democrats would have to debate live despite what anybody may tell you, the medicare for all single-payer program will give people 100% freedom of choice to go to any doctor they want to go to. you can read more of that in the washington post. eddie in massachusetts, go ahead. caller: good morning.

one has to ask themselves, why does it cost twice as much to medicate our people? of the would be in favor government because they would be responsible than. they would probably give the doctors, nurses, hospitals something like free from litigation, these frivolous lawsuits. doctors give x-rays, cat scans, crts just to prove they are efficient, but it is wasting. thank you. from al joins us california who says end it. good morning. caller: yeah. we lost our insurance in 2013 $2200 a monthing for me and my wife. the only reason everybody likes thes they get in free are subsidies. without the subsidies, it is

unaffordable. i can't believe these guys are saying how great it is. host: you don't qualify for a subsidy, i take it? $55,000 inis california and me and my wife make $75,000. we pay $24,000 a year for insurance. that might bring us back down to $52,000. host: for the monthly premiums you do pay, what do you get out of that and what else do you pay on top of that? caller: it is $65,000 if you go $6,500.ospital, $75 if you go to a specialty. $40 if you go to the regular doctor and when you go to the doctor, my wife had her -- all the women tests done and we paid our stuff to go there, we still got a $200 bill on top of that saying what insurance does not

cover. host: was this insurance you bought for yourself? did you get it through an employer? before 2013, we had insurance. it was $375 a month, we had great insurance and then it went to $750 and then they said, we are letting you go, it is cheaper for you guys to get insurance on the exchange then for us to carry you, that was the excuse for companies to get rid of you on their policy, which they did to us. experience inal's california getting on the aca and what he is paying for it. from illinois, the last call on this topic says fix it. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i am a disabled veteran and i go

neede v.a. and i think we universal care. i heard people talking about the v.a.. if you are sick and not seeing your primary care physician, you can go the -- to urgent care the same day and see a doctor and get your medication like the previous caller said earlier, probably out of there in about 4 hours. i get excellent service. i think all americans should have free medical coverage. host: he will end our discussion this morning. coming up, two reporters joining us. one covers the white house and one covers congress. a lot of topics to talk about. the president recent tweet -- president's recent tweets, ice raids -- all of that coming up jeff mason.lsen and

looking at proposals to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. eydie share holt -- heidi shierholz joins us and michael farren. all of that coming up on "washington journal." ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tonight, on "the communicators," a congressman who represent silicon valley talks about the big issues facing the tech industry and the oversight of congress. he is interviewed by washington post technology reporter greg timber. >> people are outraged. the things congress should do to keep campaigns through using our

data to change the way we think about our votes. we struggle to perceive these things. >> we need the strong privacy laws and i have the internet bill of rights which articulates some things. we should never have data collected without knowing about it and our consent. we should know what happens to our data so in the cambridge analytic a case, we should -- facebook should have a responsibility to immediately notify people when they were transferring their data and they didn't do that. people should also have been toe to inquire at any point facebook what was happening with their data and that wasn't there. if you pass a basic protection for people online, you would avoid things like the cambridge analytic a scandal. communicators" tonight on c-span two. in c-span's three

presidential leadership survey, woodrow wilson dropped from six to 11 plays and bill clinton rises from 21st two the 15th spot. where does your favorite present rank. learn more about leadership skills of the 44 chief executives and see the past of the present. it's great vacation reading wherever books are sold or at www.c-span.org/the presidents. ♪ ♪ >> the house will be in order. c-span's beens, providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d c and around the country. yourway you can make up own mind. create a by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

"> "washington journal continues. for around 10us this morning, jeff mason of reuters who covers the white of fox wholan nelson was their congressional reporter, thank you for joining us. let's start with you, the president tweeted toward some democratic powers of congress. tell us the reaction since those tweets were delivered. guest: there has been outrage over them particular from democrats but others as well. many people are viewing them as racist. the president suggested that three or four -- four members of congress who are women of color should go back to where they came from. three out of the fort of them were born in the united states and the other was an immigrant or is an immigrant. this is sort of part of a pattern that his critics see as engaging and racial baiting and

outrage to essentially white america or white supremacists. the president denies that in the he is notund him say engaging in racism and is just talking about love of country and objecting to some of the things they have said. in terms of the pattern of some of his behavior, they really object to the suggestion that he is racist.there were people on the other side who think that's exactly the kind of behavior that he's engaging in and the tweet exemplifies that. host: talk about who was the focus of these tweets and the reaction. guest: these are focused on the so-called progressive squad which is representative ilhan omar aoc, and the sheet a tally. rashida talib. unapologetic

progressive women and the president's tweets did not specifically say go back to your home country but said go back to where you came from. is obviously worth putting out the three out of four of these women were born in the united states. somaliaar was born in but as a naturalized citizen of the united states. the reason the president was tweeting this was coming on the heels of this internal debate among house democrats over the place of progressives in congress and longtime house democrats. i think there was this vicious infighting happening last week and continuing on to this weekend. i think the president may have solved that with his own tweet, unifying democrats by stepping into this fight. host: the assistant speaker going on the sundays show yesterday and talking about that aspect. let's hear what he had to say. [video clip] >> the president has been

tweeting this morning and i want to put up a tweet. he specifically has been calling out progressive democratic congresswoman who come whoseally from countries governments are complete and total catastrophe and he says why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. then come back and show us how it is done. your thoughts about president mac --aying to duly a duly elected member the covers to go back home. >> that's the first time hearing about that. that's a racist week. telling people to go back where they came from -- these are american citizens elected by voters in the united states of in one of theve most distinguished representative bodies. i think that's wrong and what this going on across america, for the president to spend time saying such racist things this , horrendous detention

facilities we have across the country, the vice president pence brought attention to that even he says are around and the inspector general has called out , that the commission on human rights from the u.n. has said that these facilities are in horrendous conditions. the price of insulin has increased over 1000% and will impact people, that's what the president should have his attention on, not picking these fights and sending out racist tweets. reaction, whate do you expect as far as this week in congress if we hear more about it? guest: democrats will keep hammering this. sent out another tweak accusing these four of being racist themselves. this is not something that will go away. democrats are going to continue to protect and defend these four members. what we are really looking to see is if republicans will say anything. so far, there hasn't been much

from that side. the president's self-defense of these tweets and the message behind them, have you seen anymore? guest: i haven't but i'm sure there will be more at the white house from his crowd of supporters who will come up and defend what he is saying or interpret what he's saying. right, therere will be a lot more criticism certainly coming from capitol hill. it might be instructive to take a look at how the president and the white house have reacted in previous times were there is a controversy about what he has said that is considered racist. i'm thinking of the charlottesville controversy. he doubled down after that. he came back to the white house from new york and gave a statement in the lobby of trump tower and came back to the white house and made a statement again where he tried to pull back a little bit and directly after that, doubled down again. i don't think we will see a

president who apologizes or who sees this as having been the wrong thing to say despite the outcry. host: here are the phone lines -- the other topic is the detention of the border but the long immigration ratids that were supposed to launch yesterday. what have we seen from these raids? guest: going into these rates, there was a question of how much we would see. they are not bringing reporters along with them for these raids. so far, i have not seen any clear reporting or evidence of what actually took place yesterday and perhaps they are trying to keep it a little more secretive than the president did

last week when he telegraphed the fact that it was supposed to happen. there were definitely people all over the country this weekend who were afraid and knew who are concerned about what was coming and on edge about the fact that ice agents were apparently coming to their door. host: is there a reaction of that telegraphing? some: when you hear from of the agencies involved, they will not give you a whole lot of information and they suggest this is not something we telegraph but the president dead. i think the president, by doing that, raises the question of whether it was actually talking about the fact that this is happening or talking to his base to show that is doing something and making good on promises he has made generally. host: we saw the vice president traveling to these detention centers. what is the messaging there? guest: that was a very dramatic

visit on friday, vice president pence visited a couple of detention centers in texas. one of them was for families and was brand-new and pretty clean. it seemed like it was a reasonable place in terms of the facility itself. the other one was for single men and was clearly overcrowded. it was really unpleasant. he was only in there for about andeconds and he walked out it was a messaging opportunity that he said he expected to be overcrowding and he said it's a sign the congress needs to get its act together in terms of funding. the flipside is this is happening under vice president pence and president donald trump watch. it's their administration and the criticism will be this is what you are overseeing. host: the messaging coming from democrats and republicans -- we

saw them go to the border and look for themselves but what is the message from both sides on capitol hill? guest: among democrats and it's on the heels of what happened before with this drama with the border aid funding bill. it passed the house even though progressives are angry about there not being further standards to make sure these places are clean and there are translator services and especially kids are getting basic necessities like to russia's. -- like toothbrushes. congress passed the funding bill so there is money going toward trying to improve and that was the intention. i think there is going to be concerned about oversight and making sure this money is actually doing what the administration says it will do. contributegoing to to more overcrowding and people pouring into these camps and conditions not improving. host: republicans were telling democrats that they were turning

a blind eye to this issue even before it became an issue. democrats wasand say they have not been. that is the messaging from republicans that democrats, maybe this happened during the obama years but the fact is, there are trump administration policies that are exacerbating this like turning white people coming to ports of entry. and kind of creating exacerbating this crisis on the border and i think the video that came out this weekend supported that. are with us for the hour and her first caller is from bob in illinois. the republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to ask each of your guests regarding the meal a report -- them mueller report, the lead -- the fbi allegedly spying on the trunk campaign to

take off their reporter hats for a few minutes and look at it like we do out here in the general population i like to find out if they think it will reach up to obama? how high up in the obama administration did they think it will go realistically? thank you. talk about the status of the robert miller -- robert mueller testify. guest: it was pushed back another week so this will be pivotal, highly watched testimony on capitol hill although robert mueller has been clear that he will not talk about anything beyond what has been in the report already. i don't think he wants to politicize this any more than it already has been. democrats still have an ongoing

debate about impeachment i capitol hill and a number of democrats who were on the fence started saying they wanted an impeachment after he made that rare public spate -- statement in may. that testifying could cause more democrats to support that. host: what will spell it out as far as the pushback of the hearings? i have to confess that i was traveling last week so it wasn't as tuned into watching the news but it was to sort of give him more time to push that back. host: the white house is still dealing with the idea of the mueller guest: report. guest:you see in the president's tweets and discussions that he continues to see this is what he calls a witchhunt in the fact that robert mueller is testify at all brings the story back to the forefront of the news and that is not really something that the president is eager to see. he and other republicans will

view this as an opportunity to ask robert mueller questions that they don't believe have been answered and maybe one will be what the caller was talking about. certainlye, it will be an intense few hours for both sides when that happens if it does happen next week. host: is there a concern that it might not happen next week? guest: i don't want to suggest that for the fact that it's been put off a week, for me, it always raises skepticism about whether it will happen or not. host: the inspector general is looking into the fbi in the sourcing of the dossier, where are we on that? i think that was supposed to come up pretty soon and i don't have the date in my head but that's been coming on the white house is foreshadowing that as something to be watching. host: let's hear from nancy in austin, texas. caller: two brave things -- one

on charlottesville. one representative came from a camp in somalia or kenya. she was there for four years and we rescued her and brought her to the u.s. she becomes a representative and she starts saying how much she hates the united states and how she was to change it fundamentally. that's what trump was talking about. it has nothing to do with her raise whatsoever. second thing has to do with charlottesville. i'm tired of you guys repeating over and over this false narrative of that trump was deciding with the white nationalists or whatever they were. there were many other people there. there were people who did not want to see our statues taken down. i'm one of those i'm not a white nationalists. you keep on throwing up this false narrative over and over. if you're repeated often enough, people will believe it. those are my comments. host: il let's start withhan

omar, the perception she hates the united states, where does that come from? guest: i would push back on that. is an immigrant and came from small you enter the united states through the citizenship process and enter the u.s. legally. she repeated this weekend that she is progressive at roots nation. of the united states is much different than the presidents and his base. i think that's part of what the caller is talking about is some of the comments that she has made in the past that are perceived as anti-israel and calling out aipac and other things in congress. her focus on israel has kind of been twisted as being an anti-u.s. focus.

alliance is.s. strong and that something republicans in particular have been trying to strengthen and are calling out omar. i wouldn't say that's an anti-american bias. host: do you want to respond to the charlottesville comments? guest: sure, the facts of that situation are that there were white supremacists who were it was led by them and there were people who came to protest them and it led to one woman being killed. the president afterwards made a point of saying there are good people on both sides and many people took that as a census because it came across as being a defense of white supremacists. the caller is saying that there were different views about the statues and that very well may be but the fact of the matter are what he said in the context of it being a white supremacist rally. host: this is from georgia,

robert honor independent line. good morning. thanks for taking my call. i like donald trump. all of a sudden he is a racist and i understand his comments on the other ladies. i hear that if you don't like this country the way it was founded, why are you here? we don't keep you here, we are not a communist nation. in the meantime, if you don't enjoy us the way the constitution is written, you are free to leave. that's my comment. the four women are congresswomen and they were duly elected by their districts and

represent their constituents in congress. having some views about how to change america is also very american. there is nothing wrong with having views on how to improve the country or district you represent. those views may be different from the callers or the president and that's in line with the spirit of the constitution that the callers talking about. it's protected by the values and the laws of the united states. when making comments about the president, nancy pelosi said that when donald trump tells for america in to go back to their country, it reaffirms the plan to make america great again is about making merrick at white again. -- is making america white again. guest: it was a strong town. politically felt like she had to push back vigorously.

nation of a immigrants and has been long before we found ourselves in this crisis. this is going back centuries. people come from other countries with perspectives on how to strengthen this country. is a pelosi's tweet message she has of our diversity is our power and diversity is our strength, many different ideas come up with something stronger and better. with this also comes division in the party itself. i think there is still some hashing out in the internal democratic caucus that will happen this week. beeniggest divide that has roiling the caucus is a bit of

an idea logical and generational divide. cortez -- oh seo casio cortez has been ridiculed by the republican party because calledbacked by a group justice democrats that makes its mission to primary more moderate, older democrats. as we get closer to the election, house democrats intent on keeping their majority. that don't want primary challenges even in the bluer districts. they want to keep their incumbents safe and the reason there was such vicious infighting is because groups like justice democrats were more are making no bonds about the fact that they would like to see some of these more moderate members gone. host: the white house use this back of death back and forth for its advantages? guest: it gives them an opening. there are plenty of issues on

be republican side that will vulnerabilities for president trump in 2020. right now, the unity as a republican party is not one of them. the republican party is largely unified behind president trump. the rnc and president trump's campaign are working very closely together, raising canions of dollars and he going to his reelection by and evenhat his base people who may have had questions in 2016 on the republican side, want him to get reelected. you can see this divisiveness and he can use it to his advantage. he is trying to do that. host: raleigh, north carolina, democratic line. caller: how are you? say that for me personally, i have obamacare.

it's the best thing that's ever happened to me. i've never been able to afford insurance before. i'm self employed in the construction business. thatnly thing i can say is there is some of that the needs to be fixed just like my son. have three girls right now and they are all teenagers. he doesn't quite make enough to get obamacare because you've got to make a certain amount of money before you can get the obamacare. he doesn't make that which in turn, he should be able to go for medicare. or medicaid. carolina, got to make under a certain amount of money before you can qualify for medicaid so he is stuck in the middle.

i think there is a way we can me, i'm 62t for years old and is the first time i've ever been able to afford any kind of insurance. host: thank you very much. at the same time we've we see the administration suing over they say theyar have some kind of plan to protect those might be affected. is there a game plan of how that's done? guest: no, and the president said he will provide those details after the election. republicans on the hill are pretty concerned when he suggested he was going to do this big push to get rid of obamacare without a plan. the democrats in 2018 were very successful on the issue and helped bring a majority. have lawmakers makeng for president who

health care another hot topic on the campaign trail. i think republicans are probably concerned about that. the callerf epitomizes the fact that, for many people, obamacare, even with its flaws, has been a good thing. it's for people who have it and there are many people who were opposed to how obamacare was brought in and feel there should be something different. both sides are legitimate but this is going to be i think another big topic in 2020. host: from the republicans on health care, is there an alternative they can present? >> i'm curious to see what that is. a bigpublicans won victory during the tax bill when they repealed the individual mandate.

the trump administration is looking to further weaken the affordable care act but the vision we have seen her from republicans so far as what they don't like about the affordable care act and how they are trying to dismantle. they are not really putting back a proactive issue of what they would like to see i think that's happening on the democratic side where we have a number of candidates running in 2020 joe biden put out his health care plan which seem to be an option that's more for a medicare by him. we have people advocating for plans like bernie sanders who authored the plan in congress. there is a robust debate on the democratic side over where we want to go from here. do we want to strengthen the reform will care act or do something different? i would be curious to see if muchdent trump releases a more detailed laid out vision of what he would like to see for health care? . our reporters are joining

us. if you want to ask questions in the next half hour, these are the numbers -- there is a budget to be assidered so where are we far as the house and the senate as far as the budget? orst: this is the one area hopefully democrats and republicans can work together on legislation. i think there are some things that need to be hammered out with budget caps on spending caps but it's something that last i heard, majority leader steny hoyer is negotiating with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and republicans said is feeling confident that congressional republicans want to come to a deal on a spending cap and the budget. there's less copper is that the white house wants to come to a deal with that.

this is a big thing and i think democrats want to be seen as a party that can pass a longer budgets we don't have constant anothere month after and a looming government shutdown crisis which we saw a lot last year. i think there is still kind of a long road ahead. of thehat's your sense roles that steven mnuchin and mick mulvaney will play in getting a resolve on this? guest: they have an interest in getting something done and making sure the debt ceiling gets raised. both parties have used the fight over budgets and the debt ceiling in particular as a way to get something else they want. we will see to what extent that ends up being the dynamic in the coming weeks. i believe secretary mnuchin has said recently, i think he sent a letter to speaker pelosi saying he would like to see this issue

taken care of before the august recess because the united states technically might run out of money before congress gets back in the fall if they don't raise the debt ceiling before then. host: has the president said anything specifically about resolving these legit issues? guest: i haven't seen anything from him on this. now that we are getting closer d-day, theto the reporters will start asking him but i cannot recall anything he said about himself lately. host: is there a sense that when it comes to getting these things what's the timetable? is august a realistic timetable to get this done question mark guest: i think democrats want to meet the timetable. i think there are still a number of things that still need to be i believe all stop floodedch mcconnell has keeping senators here during august recess if they cannot

finalize this. let's hear from a viewer in indiana, robert come republican line go ahead. caller: good morning, i don't know where to start but i tell you -- if we don't open our eyes and see what's going on -- the democrats don't want to do anything to help this country. you can see it. they don't want to do anything but bring trump down and impeach him. job and get your policies made and get some kind of togetherness. host: we heard of lot of resistance even from the house side toward the idea of -- impeachment. of thethere are members democratic caucus that want to start an impeachment.

house speaker nancy pelosi is opposed to that and she believes impeachment is a waste of time and i kind of agree with the colors point that she wants to pass bipartisan policy rather than going down this rabbit hole of impeachment. gone the to see trump of the 2020 election. rather than impeachment. host: there is a hearing at 5:00 -- a a content of congress contempt of congress resolution about attorney general william barr. that will be at 5:00 p.m. right here on c-span. what are they looking for when it comes to the contempt issue? guest: this has to do with this ongoing -- we saw this being decided in supreme court that there would be no citizenship question on the 20 census. i think democrats want more information about why the trump administration has been trying to get this question on the senses.

they tried to get wilbur ross to testify but he refused to comply with subpoenas so another contempt issue has been brought up. host: what led the white house to take the path it did on the senses question? this happened last week -- the president had first indicated he would still try to get the question of citizenship on the senses despite the supreme court decision. he expressed disappointment or anger were angrier -- or when the administration said they would not do this but there was a back-and-forth sense that that was being reversed and then he reversed himself again last week and said there wasn't going to be time to get onto the senses so instead, he was theing in order to get executive departments, the administrative part, the agencies, i should say to

collate and turn in that information to the extent we have it on citizenship. i think it came down partially to a logistic thing to continue to have legal challenges to this and go through the court. it would've taken a long time. the supreme court left open the possibility that the administration could put that question on the senses but they said their new to be a different rationale all stop the amount of time to get that through the process in the end did not appear to be sufficient in order to make it happen. host: the white house expects a clean process with no hiccups. guest: anything they do now on this issue will be challenged. outside groups who were challenging it already when it led to the senses have already said they continue -- they intend to continue challenging this. this will be tied up in the

courts either way for some time8. host: from ellicott city, keith, democrats line. to the good morning, previous african-american caller that questioned that donald trump was a racist. he may not be a races but he uses race for political gain. all the ones that voted for donald trump, he is the first to come to washington to start problems. andease our national debt the country had never been more divided. i've never seen more people not being able to talk her work together. this is the first time in his because donald trump language, actions, he is the most divisive

person i have ever seen an office and i've been a supporter of him if he tried to be more presidential and solve these problems. within the first 100 days he solve the immigration issue and would solve the health issue. he has done nothing but dishonest thing since he's been in office and it's hard for these folks who are supporters to say he has failed in all the things he tried to do. two piecesed through of legislation everything else is an executive order and he was supposed to be the person to walk across both parties. he has done a terrible job. the facts are clear. i suppose the trump campaign, the reelection campaign will look at circumstances where they will look at it positively. guest: in terms of promises made, promises kept, that is one withe mantras at his rally

another one this wednesday and that something his campaign sees as a strength. the caller is right in terms of some of the legislation. the tax reform bill and law is viewed by the president and around him as a success as one of the drivers of the economy. the economy is seen as a major success. those are the types of things he will talk about going into the election. there are other things he did as well that were promises that he made. kept the united states out of the iran nuclear agreement which is controversial. it was certainly telegraphed by the president when he was a candidate. he full the united states out of the paris climate accord. many people think that was a wrong move but many republicans were supportive of that. host: also north korea. guest: he has been active in trying to get some sort of peace deal with north korea. he has held three meetings with kim jong-un.

criticism about that because he is given the north korean leader a stage and some would say a legitimacy but having conduct of these meetings without a whole lot to show for it. and he still working on that. the trump campaign manager we not focus on what the caller suggests which is not having a whole lot of promises made. they view it as having a lot to do with checkmarks on it. several senators on the democratic side a running for president. how's is the senate working with those senators running and how is it affecting the work of the senate? guest: the bulk of the work of the senate right now is confirming judges and working on this budget deal. i think some of the senators are now that they are running.

there is a whole litany of senators who were not there. i am following elizabeth warren's campaign closely and she doing quite a bit of work. rulesfice is turning out and different letters and some of thet mirror things she is putting out on the campaign trail as well. for the larger business of the senate, mitch mcconnell is clear that he is mostly interested in confirming judges. there is model a lot of big legislation happening in the senate. missed.know if they are was: what kind of event elizabeth warren at? they have an annual gathering of progressive activists and there were nearly 4000 people in philadelphia this weekend for this annual gathering. meeting the net roots

last year. she was there last year as well and has been coming there for years since before she was a senator. she tried to regulate big thanks in the wake of the financial crisis. this crowd loves her. she's very familiar with them and got the warmest sort -- reception out of any of the candidates that appeared. what's notable to many people is senators who were not there. kamala harris and cory booker were there last are but did not trip up this year as well as bernie sanders. activists are excited about elizabeth warren but i don't think they are ready to coordinate her as the nominee quite yet. host: when it comes to central challengers, is joe biden topping the list are everyone else? anyone the trunk campaign would be concerned about? like to keep saying it's still early so president on joe think is focused

biden because he is the front runner. the firstin democratic debate, senator kamala harris came out swinging and that helped her and her poll numbers. senator warren is doing pretty well. senator sanders is still pretty high but facing challenges. tier and pete buttigieg, the mayor of south bend, indiana out fun raised the entire field. so you have a lot of players but i think it's fair to say that president trump has been focusing a lot of his attention on joe biden because of his place in that list. despite having a rough first debate, continues to be the front runner. we will see. you got a bunch of time between now and the first primary contest which is the iowa caucus and a lot can change. bloomington, indiana,

democrats line, hello. caller: good morning, c-span. i want obamacare to be fixed first of all. these democrats running for president would be better than what we have at the moment. why they haven't m toueller and why they are not giving the information to the democrats in the house. it must be a cover-up is for as i'm concerned. host: what do you mean by that? caller: i mean they are not getting anything that we know of from the president. he is blocking everything. sorything's being blocked

nobody gets to hear what really is going on. i'm very disappointed that he will not be here this coming wednesday. becausecerning to me there is so much russia communication. i have been reading the mueller report. i'm close to being done. but it's not right what's going of thosenow and anyone democrats would be better than president trump. host: do you want to take anything from that? thet: she is speaking to larger frustration, certainly members of the house democrats that this speaks to the larger subpoena battle between congress and the president and the fact that kratzer were trying to conduct oversight of the white house not just with the mullah report -- they are trying to do a lot of things

about the u.s. response to the hurricane and puerto rico, about immigration come about climate change. there are many things they want to look at where the trump administration is not providing documents and witnesses and democrats are decrying it as an unprecedented opposition to them trying to do constitutionally mandated oversight and that leads to frustration and this opposition between the white house and congress. let me shift topics before we move on -- -- the president with supporting the sky and now he's out. guest: according to people around the president, and the president himself of that matter, secretary acosta decided himself that he did not want to be a distraction because of his involvement in the jeffrey epstein case 12 years ago. he gave a press conference last

week from the department of as a defenseny saw to an audience of one. this way president trump would not withdraw his support. the president did not seem to have done that at then did accept the resignation when secretary acosta offered it. what was telling to me is the fact that he gave him a sendoff. the secretary came out with president trump when he was departing the white house last week. he talked about how great he had been as a secretary and let a cost to himself say why he was stepping down. that's unusual for people who the president is trying to separate himself from. he was not trying to separate himself. he just accepted the resignation. host: we have a number of acting secretaries now running the government. is the white house trying to resolve that? guest: i don't think it's a

concern of the white house but it's a concern of others. it's not a concern that the president shares. he is very comfortable with the acting title. he seems to like having people there who may be give him more bexibility by not seeming to permanent. theve spoken with people in white house to say even if your title is all acting, we are all acting because the president can fire you anytime. to your question, i don't think that's a major concern. host: any sense of congress over the status of acting secretaries? guest: i think there is a lot of concern. there are numerous positions that need to be confirmed that there is this revolving door that people are not in there long enough to come up percent at confirmation. when it comes to congress and oversight, it's hard to know who to have oversight over because

there are so many people coming and going. host: republican line from tennessee, go. caller: thank you. the democratic party is not democratic party anymore. they want to take what your guns and they wantme to raise taxes. if you criticize them, you are considered a white per's -- white supremacist or your prejudice. host: let's hear from kevin in fort lauderdale, independent line. caller: i just heard a bunch of callers and i am frustrated. i am a special educator and an independent, no party official -- affiliation. . the thing that bothers me about is a lot ofration

promises that came out of the last election, both sides not doing their job. concern is always been health care. i am a special education teacher and we don't get paid for the summer, contrary to popular beliefs. i have made the same $42,000 for the last seven years while losing money. i had an injury to my shoulder this summer and i'm broke until the fall. i will not see a check for six weeks. my issue here is that people are complaining about health care with a president who has gutted the aca, not obamacare, let's get real about it. this was a bipartisan bill from years ago that was thrown about in government for years. it's been built up by both parties but my problem is it's hurting our economy as well and people don't look at the big picture. a good friend of mine whose wife

is a teacher came down with leukemia. he has been working his life making $56,000 per year and lost it because he is sick. he cannot work anymore. by doing that, he lost his insurance. he cannot get leukemia treatment. how are the republicans and democrats talking about our economy and health care system, how are they doing the job for the american people because the are showing biden on one side and trump on the other. not a single person on the democratic side that is a front runner except for bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. you put a lot out there. respond as you wish. guest: there is this frustration that the caller was speaking to

that even though democrats were elected in 20 18, there's the perception that washington is not getting a lot done. part becauseis in there is divided government with republicans controlling the senate and democrats control the house. democrats have been passing a lot of bills. the hip and passing bills to strengthen the affordable care act and passing bills to lower prescription drug costs. that at least is something that at least is something the donald trump wants to get done as well. progress has not been made senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has no incentive to work with democrats on these going up toially his reelection in 2020. host: guest: mr. mason? the caller emphasizes something we have talked about today which is how important health care is to a lot of voters.

it exemplifies the fact that whether you are on the republican or democratic side, this is an issue your constituents care about. people cannot care -- pay for their care if they don't have insurance or if they are in that middle ground. absolutely something that democrats will want to emphasize when they go on the campaign trail. they will say republicans and president trump are trying to take your health care away. one thing that the caller said that republicans would disagree , there are issues on the aca that were taken from republican supported efforts for the bill itself was passed on a largely partisan vote. host: this story was just posted on the nbs's but there is talk nextlbur ross being the one to work on the census.

do you hear any rumblings of that? guest: i haven't heard yet but as soon as i get out of the studio i will be making calls. he is one of the cabinet officials people of speculated about as being perhaps on the way out. he came in and seem to be a part of the inner circle when he first arrived. seemed to have become less influential with president trump but has still been in the mix. he hasn't been a real player in the china trade talks which was italy -- largely by the foreign-policy adviser but there has been talk about secretary ross as someone who might be on the list of people who don't stay a lot longer. host: texas is next, republican line, go ahead. caller: the one thing i see when we started this conversation about the young congress women

is the have grown up without having any way of being respectful to their elders. they have spoken to nancy pelosi terribly. nancy pelosi is a senior citizen. all of her time in congress, these young women should have given her at least the respect of her agents knowledge. it's interesting this rift between for aggressive's and nancy pelosi. these were two sides that when nancy pelosi was in a battle to keep her speaker seat at the beginning of the session, this is a group that was supporting her. it was moderate democrats who were the ones who wanted to see her gone. , the fact that the tables have turned, it's interesting given the fact that progressives largely have gone with what

nancy pelosi had said and moderates of them the ones giving her problems on some bills. about respect, certainly some of these young members have been more outspoken in tweets about takership and people might offense to that but i don't think it's so much personal attack on pelosi, just an ideological difference about where the party should go. host: democrats lied is next, washington line. i was: good morning, physically sickened last week about seeing those pictures at the detention center when mike pence and his wife just stood there and basically gave these comments that everything was ok and yes it's overcrowded that you could see by the photographs that even the big thermoses of water, they didn't have access

to them. they were on the other side of the fence. i feel these things are just useless forms of cruelty. this is not going to do anything to help immigration or illegal immigration. there are no laws, there are things we could use to solve problems but we just want to do these really cruel things whether it's insurance or whether have people of access or don't or of its just talking about other countries. it's a form of cruelty that i cannot believe this is where we are at. -- it to encourage people went to a marathon reading of er report of a local theater and i tried to read it at home and it was like reading a legal brief and was way over my head but a kind of crystallized how this president is just out for himself and how things look and how silly and stupid and scary and absurd

things have become. it's very frightening, thank you. to the detention issue, what are the next steps for the white house? question.t's a good we talked about a little earlier that the vice president was saying that there should be a wake-up call for congress in terms of getting more funding. i think there will be pressure on him now that he's been there and on the administration probably over this issue because thate terrible conditions he witnessed firsthand there were then broadcast. i understand the water she was referencing that the men were behind fences or cages when the vice president and press was there and they have access to that water when the press was not there. not to suggest that the conditions there are pleasant. it sounds like it was absolutely awful.

host: how long has it been since we heard about the wall? it was a regular topic of his. guest: it's still a regular topic. it's a sensitive one for him because there is certainly a perception and with good reason that not all of the wall is being built in the way he promised in 2016. his initial promise was we will elders wall of mexico will pay for it. that of course is not happening in by 2020, there are not -- were not be dead will not be a wall. a national or urgency this year to divert some funds to help build the wall. -- he would say that is being built. host: the detention topic, the assistant and spit back to her -- the inspector

general will testify today to see that our website at www.c-span.org at 5:30 p.m. this afternoon. one more call from polaski, tennessee, go ahead. weekend, the pro-immigration group is demonstrating at various cities and places it is my in colorado, they took down the american flag in the blue lives matter flag improvement and put up the mexican fact. if they want to come to the united states and be a part of this country, why isn't there any respect even for the american flag? we let you go, what else are you watching for? there are so many things

to be watching for. this week at the white house, you will see the prime minister of the netherlands visiting. that will not be a big topic. just generally moving into the election cycle. there is going to be a lot more on that coming from the white house and president trump's campaign and the democrats out on the trail. host: sent question to you. guest: joe biden, the current front runner for the democratic nomination for 2020 released his health care plan. we will have another robust debate about health care. in the house, i believe there will be a vote on the $15 minimum wage coming up. given last week's news that nancy pelosi and groups agree on, it is a concern to many people. she is there congressional

reporter. house the white correspondent for reuters. thank you for joining us. there is a bill this week taking a look at the minimum wage. there will be a debate coming up next with heidi shierholz of policy institute and michael farren of mercatus center talking about the pros and cons of the $15 minimum wage. this is the 50th anniversary of the apollo moon mission. you can see more of that on c-span.org as we bring you special programming. that roundtable discussion is coming up next. >> here we are 50 years after apollo celebrating the 50th anniversary of apollo. , itng the apollo program was not a popular program. when it was achieved, that monumental achievement was not

only popular when it was complete it was popular 50 years after it was complete. people love apollo. we have a new program named after the twin sister, artemis. when we go to the moon, we are going with a diverse, highly qualified astronaut corps that includes women. story in my view is absolutely beautiful. indicate that space exploration is a necessity. overwhelmingly, people believe space exploration is necessary. 77% said yes. space exploration is going to the moon, mars and beyond. it is important to note americans support the space exploration in general. it is also important to note that this unique capability that

we have built and that we are continuing to build has resulted in economic opportunity not just for the u.s. but the entire world. when we talk about the way we communicate, directv, dish network, some people will be watching this on directv or internet broadband from space. i come from oklahoma. ruralot of parts of oklahoma, you don't have tv or internet if they don't come from space. this was born from this agency called nasa that gets less than .5%. the way we produce food, the way we produce energy, disaster the relief, banking, understand how the earth is changing, all of these things are born from nasa that gets less than .5% of the federal budget. if you communicate to the american people, all of these

benefits they receive every day from the apollo program, if you communicate that and say how important to this -- how important is this to you? space exploration is important to our country. i believe that. >> washington journal continues. host: a discussion about the memo ways, especially a call for a $15 minimum wage. joining us is heidi shierholz. she was the chief economist for barack obama and she serves as policy director at the policy institute. and michael farren with the mercatus center at george mason university. thank you for joining us. guest 1: thank you for having us. host: congress debates a bill for the normal wage. what is being proposed? guest 1: to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025.

there are a few more minor provisions, the two key ones being after that it would automatically update the minimum wage going forward so it would not do the things minimum wages do if you do not index it. it will no longer erode over -- purchasingion power will be maintained. one thing people do not know is the federal law allows employers workers $2.13 per hour. host: what you think about that approach? guest 2: it is a worthwhile idea and it is noble to want to raise wages. the problem with the minimum wage, especially federal been my wage, applies the same standard

across many different areas that don't have the same effect of the minimum wage. research has shown the rural effect of the minimum wage is much higher than the urban effect of the minimum wage. there are already higher minimum d.c. that9 states and cover 60% of the population. the u.s. south will be hit hard by federal been wage. host: we have not seen a minimum-wage federal increase in more than 10 years. guest 2: i don't think a federal minimum wage is the right policy to pursue. the minimum wage is like fishing with dynamite. it is flashy and effective but it can cause collateral damage. we want to avoid the collateral damage while at the same time implementing a policy that rages -- raises wages. somee subsidy would have of the benefits of raising wages

rather than the minimum wage, which reduces the incentive of the employer. taking a look at the minimum-wage snapshot. benefits of increasing minimum wage to $15 and what they found was the benefits to low-wage workers of increasing the memo wage vastly outweigh the cost. i will disagree with michael. i think the research is clear that you raise the normal wage and getting money in the pockets of low-wage workers reduces inequality and poverty without the negative impact many people have historically thought they were there. they don't show up in the data when you use rigorous research. negativere was some effect to a $15 increase. guest 2: people spin it one way,

advocates spent at the other way. the middle-of-the-road answer is the cdl reports found there would be significant affects from the mineral wage, as well as raising the wages of the workers who managed to keep their jobs. that is the matter of what happens with the memo wage. if you keep your job or your hours, your income goes up. or the people who have their jobs cut, it represents an income loss. host: a potential 1.3 billion jobs lost. guest 1: i think they made an error in their assessment of this literature when they picked the parameters that they need to use to do their employment estimates. this literature is vast. there are some high-quality studies and some not so high-quality studies. the not so high-quality studies

find negative employment effects of minimum wage increases. the high-quality studies find minimum wage increases we have seen have not cause significant job loss. the error they made was instead weighting the studies better, they matched them altogether. that is how they found this negative impact. the key thing is, even if you accept cdl's -- cdo's pessimistic predictions on job loss, -- they still far outweigh the costs. call if you want to talk about the proposal. if you earn the minimum wage, (202) 748-8000. if you are a business owner, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. thet 2: the specifics of

report are important to understand. a lot of the proponents of minimum-wage are spinning this ted the should have weigh high-quality studies more highly. the 11 studies that the cdo used were cents the 2014 study that found negative effects. though studies are looking at the effect on all workers, which is why they use those studies. they are all peer-reviewed. three of the studies found actual positive impacts. the cdo used those. more studies found mild negative impacts. which is essentially what the cdo used in its analysis.

less than one third of the academic studies that used were actually positive the rest were negative. increases at an accelerating rate the higher you raise the rate. they got the numbers exactly right. what a: let's talk about low-quality study looks like. one study that was used in the assessment of what would happen is a study that looked at the employment affect of increasing the memo wage -- the increase in seattle. researchers that found data. thing, relative to

if they had not done it, they could not pin it down well. their data was good but they only had data for washington state. there is no comparison group to seattle and washington state. it is a unique place within that state. there is no other place they could look at and say here is an apples to apples comparison. even though they tried really hard, they had this great data, it was flawed because they did not have good comparison groups. more regular studies to a much better job of making apples to apples comparisons. when you do that rigorous job, but those studies find is increasing the minimum-wage does not cause job loss. host: a quick response? guest 2: the seattle study looked at the hours of been wage workers. comparisonght, a

group could only be in washington, as well. the researchers controlled that as best they could and still found the number of hours a low-wage worker worked after the inflammation of the minimum-wage wage went down. the average earnings went down by $75. differences between states over time that if implemented the minimum wage. that research finds there is a negative impact of the memo wage. it is the case study literature looking at the difference between pennsylvania and new jersey that started the question over whether memo wage has the effect. see is where you start to the can of impacts. the minimum wage has a unique impact every place every time and that is why we should be

careful about increasing the federal memo wage. guest 1: can i just make one last time. i feel like the literature is very clear but we will disagree. what we will probably not disagree on is the cbo found even if you take the most pessimistic analysis of job loss, they still find the benefits outweigh the costs. benefits are important. pennsylvania, go ahead. hello? i am sorry. part of the dumbing down of america. race, andch uses attack against unions and whatever they can to distract

the common man. abouthe scripture talks -- it is all about dumbing down the people, keeping get distracted. host: your question about the minimum-wage, sir, what is it? caller: what is wrong with a minimum wage? how can it hurt? it can only help the common men. guest 2: that is a great question. i can answer that with decades of research by economists on this. if you think a cigarette tax decreases the amount of cigarettes people by, if you think a soda tax or a carbon tax decreases the amounts of those useucts people use, or the of fossil fuels in production, you should understand minimum wage has the same effect. it is the basis of modern

economics, it is the law of demand. specifics and of labor markets are a lot more complex, but at a certain point, if you raise the memo wage, you will see economic impacts. guest 1: i think your question is great and your intuition is totally correct. what is wrong with this? when anybody suggests an increase in minimum wage, there is a refrain of you are going to hurt the people you are trying to help and it is just not true. one of the things your intuition is getting it that economists are strained to understand is 101 modelse, econ that if you increase the minimum wage you will cost jobs, they are based on laughable assumptions. it is that low-wage employers have no power to set wages

anywhere below the full value of of thed and keep some extra for themselves. anyone on the street would state what you say. that is crazy. that does not make any sense. you would be absolutely right. when you actually relax those crazy assumptions and allow that employers do have some power to suppress wages, they have the power to set wages below a total -- a worker's total worth to the firm and keep some for themselves, you get the outcome that it does not cause job loss. host: here is a business owner from ohio. caller: hello. question, if you raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, you are going to have to give up something and the unions

will not give up prevailing wage laws. if you give up prevailing wage laws, you would increase the ability for it to get done and reduce the cost by 25%. guest 1: this question of what happens with businesses is an interesting one and it is good to dig in and talk about it. when you increase the minimum wage the point is you get better wages to workers sort increased labor costs. what is the impact? when you get money into the pockets of low-wage workers who are likely to spend it, it increases demand for goods and services. offsets some of the increased costs. itther key thing it does is reduces turnover of minimum-wage workers. turnover is incredibly expensive.

having toody leaves, find somebody new, higher them, transition costs can cost up to around 20% of annual wages. when you increase the minimum wage, you reduce turnover because you get more money in the hands of low-wage workers and chaos in their lives goes down. when you reduce turnover as minimum wage does, that is another way businesses recoup cost. businesses recoup cost. for those reasons and others, businesses should not worry about an increase in minimum wage. when you have increased minimum wage in the past, it has not caused businesses to go out of business. guest 2: the idea it decreases turnover is correct. i spoke with a mcdonald's manager and it said it costs him $500 to onboard a new employee to give them a uniform and training. the problem is decreasing

employee turnover is bad for employees. they have fewer opportunities to find better jobs with better pay , better working conditions, things like that. the problem with unions supporting minimum wage is that union contracts are written that if there is an increase, the union gets a bump to its own minimum wage or requires a contract rewrite. the los angeles times reported about a unionized hotel in los angeles it paying its workers $10 per hour because unions get an exemption from complying with the minimum wage. the other hotel across the street which was not unionized was affected by the cities minimum-wage of $15 per hour. minimumt's hear from it wage earner from alexandria, virginia. hello? to doug in south

dakota, he earns minimum wage. good morning. caller: i make more than memo wage. people probably don't want to pay $15 but the people receiving the wage probably want the $15. pulling $200,000 per year and they get a pension. five years they pull a $19,000 pension every year. if you are in congress for longer you can pull up to 80% of your wages. and ryan is making $85,000 he could start collecting that pension at age 50. we pay 72% of their insurance, they go on obamacare. host: the topic of the memo

wage. what is your question or comment? caller: how can they be so different? people need to make a living wage and congress is way above that. wage goeshe minimum up, 22 up accordingly? guest 2: there is definitely a a fact that people that are higher than the memo wage see their wages raised, as well. it would cover directly about 17 million workers in 2025 but it would also indirectly affect the wages of another 10 million workers. right now there are about 400,000 people that make exactly the federal minimum wage. if you increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, you will have to minimum wage cover over 20% of all hourly

workers. guest 1: i totally agree with michael. this is really pinned down in the literature. when you increase the minimum underit is not just those that get bumped up, there are spillover effects. employers want to preserve internal wage ladders so the people getting moved up, the people who are above them get a raise. is a person on twitter that says raising the minimum wage will increase automation. you already see it at mcdonald's. guest 1: we hear that a lot. we will replace these jobs with machines. here is one thing i think is useful. i have spent my life worrying about what the labor market is delivering for u.s. workers and i am not worried about automation.

inhave always seen increases automation since the beginning of work. people have always started to use more sophisticated machines and on and on. ast process started as early we can remember and it is ongoing. it is not increasing at any faster pace. this is the thing the economy can absorb without hurting workers. what i am worried about is the minimum wage eroding overtime. that is what hurts workers. we need to increase labor standards. guest 2: this is going to be one of the situations where heidi and i have to disagree. she is probably the only economist that is not worried about the ratchet effect. once you increase the tightness of a bolt, you can't un-tightknit using a ratchet. it only tightens.

employers tend to invest in more capital sensitive production methods when you increase the minimum wage. shiftingmcdonald's is to self-serve kiosks, the fact that walmart is shifting to self-service, that happens naturally, as heidi says. but the minimum wage accelerates the impact by raising the cost of labor over what it might be. it forces the future honest faster than we might realize. mcdonald's has stated it will not fight the federal minimum wage anymore. bezon has said it will starting off workers at a $15 minimum wage and they will be advocating for a federal memo wage. this is something economists call raising rival costs. you drive the lower cost

producers and small shops out of business. minimum-wage does shift employment from smaller employers to larger employers. it might actually generate the kind of market power. host: that is michael farren with the mercatus center at george mason your mercy. we also have heidi shierholz from policy institute. california is next, a business owner. this is george. hello. caller: hello, good morning. i have a question about where you are getting this 1.3 million job loss number from? as an employer who employed a large number of people, i cannot think of anyone who hires excess people can just be eliminated because of the minimum wage.

host: what kind of business do you own? he hung up. guest 1: george's intuition is right. when labor costs go up a little bit, businesses see higher demand for their goods and services. it helps them. they say reduced turnover they find other ways to absorb cost. the weight of the best literature shows when you increase the minimum wage, it does not cause job loss. one of the things that is crucial with business owners, a particular small business owners, when thinking about increasing the minimum wage, they may think what it might be like if they had to raise their own wages independently to $15 per hour or whatever raise idea. in that case, a business might face a competitive disadvantage that might hurt them and they

might have to lay off people. that is the beauty of a wage floor. when you raise the labor standard, everyone faces the same prices and same rules and nobody faces a competitive disadvantage. that 1.3 million jobs, part of that comes from research that the cbo uses. the actual impact of the minimum wage is something different that what researchers have been looking at all the time. the decrease in employment comes from future job growth that does not happen as a result of employers shifting to more capital-intensive things, like using more machines to make their existing employees more productive. the idea of a $15 minimum wage having the same level playing field affect across the entire u.s. is not correct. it has an impact on different

kind of employers in different regions. a small shop that is less sophisticated that uses more low skilled labor in its operations will be more affected by the minimum wage than a larger place like home depot or walmart. host: let's hear from our line for others from florida. caller: good morning. the $15 minimum wage. , it isng to economists amazing how they think. they have no concept of what a small business is. we had a small business for years. we had three employees. most of those people came to us part-time after school. we have to train them. if there was a $15 an hour minimum, that $15 per hour would

have cost us about $30 per hour because one of us, either my husband or i, would've had to stop what we were doing in order to train them. the other people who take a part-time job after school do not need a living wage, so to speak. they live at home with mom and dad, this is their first venture into putting money into their own pocket. when our kids went to work, the object was you want a car? earn enough money. expenses,o living they didn't have to purchase food, all of these other things. host: stay on the line for a second. since you spoke to their world, i want you to get a response. guest 1: i have nothing to say, i completely the unders -- i completely understand the trashing of economists.

as an economist, i am ok with that. the idea that minimum-wage workers are young workers working part-time jobs after school for spending money, whether or not that was really ever true, it is actually not true today. didcan really dig in as cbo about who would get a raise if the minimum wage increased and there are a lot of grown-ups supporting families that would get a raise under a minimum wage increase that are working low-wage jobs. that is the kind of thing we see pervasively in the labor market. what we find is that if you to $15e the minimum wage per hour, the average age of the person who would get a raise under that increase is 35 years old. we are talking about people -- that is not a highschooler working after school that can depend on their parents.

that is someone depending deeply on the earnings from their low-wage job to make ends meet. that is the reality of low-wage workers today. guest 2: she describes it perfectly and the caller identified a. even economists don't like other economists. regarding the fact or the finding that the average wage of a person affected by the minimum-wage would be 35 years all, that is because this proposal to change the federal soimum wage is so enormous, outside the scope of previous research that we are pushing it to the point where over 20% of workers- 20% of hourly would be covered by the minimum wage. that would be the highest it has ever been. the biggest number before that 1979 and that was before the implementation of state and city minimum wages.

$7.25 perse it is hour does not mean everyone who is a low-wage worker earns that level. earning thee minimum wage are between 16 and 24 and 55% of those people are in the south. the south will be much more strongly affected. the impact is concentrated in low-wage areas. the fact we have not found effects until now is because those have been in areas where the minimum-wage does not have an effect. host: what you think? caller: i think they still are not understanding or the problem is for a small business. idea, or from what i have isrd, of a small business

15, 20 employees. i am talking about a small business. host: thank you, i appreciate that. guest 1: what i have found in my discussions with small business owners is it is conflict on its head. small business owners know their employees, spouses and families. they care about these workers. it is not the faceless, i work for mcdonald's, walmart and i am one person in an army of workers. it is very much the other way and small business owners, as a result, want to be able to pay their workers a minimum wage. they could be at a huge competitive disadvantage to employers if they were trying to pay higher wages and other employers weren't. a higher minimum wage is good for small businesses. they can pay their employees more.

they don't have to be at a competitive disadvantage. glad the caller gave her story because she described kind of mom and pop operation that will be more affected by a $15 minimum-wage than any other employer. the reason mcdonald's won't find it and amazon has raised their and there is a wage war among other stores to raise wages to pull employees away from competitors, is because they can afford it and they have sophisticated operations to reduce the amount of wasted their operation. a small business employer struggling to get by does not have that kind of capacity. host: from new orleans, and earner of minimum wage. robert, good morning. caller: good morning.

to dan ins go indiana. a business owner. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: me and my brother own a restaurant, if we raise this minimum-wage, we are going to run into spending wages another $100,000 per year and that is not even including the supplies we purchase, those will probably go up because other companies have to raise their minimum wage . --profited around 100 and 30 $130,000 to $150,000. if we raise our wages up $100,000 and we will have to

, are we our supplies going to have to raise our prices for food? is not going to keep people from coming out to eat? we feel like it will hurt us tremendously. host: the price of goods and services. guest 2: there was a really good example of this happening last year in canada. fast food of employers and restaurant employers in general is a strong one. labor represents 30% of their production costs and food in 5% profitly has about margin, which is half the profit margin on average of all businesses, which is about 9%. raising the minimum wage on restaurants is much harder for them to deal with than other businesses. tim hortons example in canada recently was the tim hortons

franchisee, the umbrella corporation overseeing the franchisors refused to allow the individual restaurants to raise prices or change other things in regard to restaurant operations, and terms of production costs. the answer was in order to maintain that profit margin of 4% to 5%, they had to reduce benefits of employees as a result of the minimum wage going up. the minimum wage is like a balloon, you can squeeze it at one and and it will bulge at the other end. if you squeeze it hard enough it will finally break. guest 1: the point that you made , which i totally understand, if you increase the minimum-wage will it keep people from going out to eat? what we know is it is the exact opposite of that. you are getting money in the hands of people who may be under

their previous age might not have been able to go out to eat. if you get some more money in their pockets they will have to go out and spend it so it raises demand. the other question about will increase prices, we talked about -- many ways to adjust increase demand for their goods and services. that reduces the impact of the minimum-wage. we see reduced turnover. one thing businesses do is increase prices a little bit. there was a good study that looked at the increase in restaurant prices when minimum wage goes up. in theease of 10% minimum wage causes an increase of .6% of prices. you get a big increase in minimum wage, a little bit of

that gets passed through to customers. shows -- polling shows customers are really to pay a little more to give workers a better wage. host: we need a commonsense approach that affects the economic reality of each region because $15 in new york is not $15 in alabama. guest 1: there is discussion about a regional minimum wage. we question where we work, have a family budget calculator that looks of the cost of health care, transportation, housing, food, the list of things people have to spend money on by county. you could really look at what people really need to get by. county, noere is no

city or someone be able to get a $15 minimum wage. what that says is the cost of living concern about a $15 been my wage is not about the low-wage regions, but in the higher wage regions we will need a higher minimum wage. the federal law we are talking about allows states and localities to go higher. we are seeing that now in many places, it is getting a lot of attention, and that would also be able to happen if we were at a $15 minimum wage nationwide. guest 2: the $15 minimum wage would cover 20% of hourly employees which is a vast outlier. the previous research we have looked at would not be able to accurately estimate the effects of a $15 minimum wage. even progressive economists who

study the minimum wage have said they are leery of increasing the minimum wage this high. a new york times article mentioned this. the issue is a $15 minimum wage applied in tuscaloosa is not the same thing as a $15 minimum wage in new york. it has an impact depending on how deeply it cuts into the wage distribution. intoll cut very deeply low-wage, rural, southern states, especially compared to high wage states on the pacific coast and the northeast. if we are going to have a minimum wage, a local minimum wage is a much wetter way to do it. a federal minimum wage is a bad way to do it. -- if we are going to have a minimum wage, a local minimum wage is a much better way to do

it. caller: if we are having problems with the wages in the united states, does it really make sense that we have imported 11 million low skilled workers from mexico to actually drive our wages down because they are working under the table, they are working for less than minimum wage. thatave a huge labor pool is keeping the wages artificially low. the public school system in louisville, right across the river from where i am at, jay-z is suffering badly. the literacy rate is low. what are those people going to do when they get out of school if we artificially raise these

wages to $15 per hour? it is going to make them difficult to find a job. -- it is going to make it difficult for them to find a job. the young lady had it wrong. she is making an assumption when she says all you need to do is raise your menu prices .6%. i have run a business and running a business is like steering a ship. you can't turn it on a dime. to assume your business is so nimble that you can just compensate for a $15 an hour minimum wage just like that and it will not affect your business and you will not struggle with that is extremely naive. host: we will consider the point you put out there. guest 1: the question of if we have people coming into the labor market who don't have as many skills, the one thing we know now, you can closely look

at the qualities, the characteristics of the people who would get a raise under the minimum wage increase. low-wage workers today are much better educated, they are much older. they have much better thancteristics then -- minimum wage workers earlier. we are seeing increases in education. the question about immigrants coming in, this is not a conversation about immigration so we don't have to get into that deeply, but we know immigrants come in all the way across the education spectrum. a lot of immigrants are coming in all across the education spectrum. for every low-wage worker, immigrant, non-immigrant, we need strong labor standards to make sure people are not able to

undercut what workers at that level deserve to earn in the u.s. economy. guest 2: i think the caller showed some pretty good economic intuition in the ideas he was asking about. regarding minimum wage, if you set a high federal minimum wage, it is going to automatically incentivize workers to try to get around that. using undocumented workers who do not have to be paid the minimum wage because they are not on the federal roles is one way to do that. i'm not saying that is something that exists widespread, but the core idea of economics is incentives matter and the $15 minimum wage would increase the incentives to find a way to get around the minimum wage. there is good economic research that finds immigration does not decrease wages. it results in additional economic growth in the local area as a result of the incoming

immigrants demanding new products and services, themselves, as well. regarding the effect of minimum wage on prices, the research heidi quoted said 10% of the minimum wage results in a .6% increase in prices. that is likely based on recent research based on wages today. would5 minimum wage increase the federal minimum wage by over 100%. done research previously it is actually about 3%. 100% minimum wage would result in an increase in restaurant prices of 30%. that will affect people deciding whether or not to go out to eat. question fore one

both of your economists. is it true that for every dollar put into the economy returns $1.50? is that true? second, the gentleman said it would be detrimental to the southern states if they raise everinimum wage, has he studied which states draw the most federal subsidies? it is the southern states because of the low wages. mcdonald's for example, you can either subsidize mcdonald's by paying those employees food stamps and welfare, and that is what you are doing -- when those employers do not pay enough for a living wage to some of those people who are 40 years old and raising a family on a minimum wage, when you raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour to remove a lot of people off of government

subsidy. you can pay some more for a hamburger or you can pay more in taxes. guest 1: i appreciate your point about a very low minimum wage meaning people have to depend on government benefits in a way that would not if they received a decent wage. that was spot on. i have nothing to add to that. the question about putting one dollar into the economy and a creating $1.50. that is depending on who gets a dollar. that gets at the heart of the question. when that dollar goes to people who have a lot of money, it does not necessarily generate more money because those people are already spending everything that they want to spend. they have everything they want, essentially. they are much less likely to go out and spend that additional dollar so it does not generate as much economic activity.

on the other hand, you get money into the hands of low-wage workers, people who have no choice but to get right out and spend that, because they -- that does indeed generate a large multiplier effect. it matters who gets the money. that is why a minimum wage increase is good for the economy. guest 2: the caller brings up a great point. one dollar does not actually lead to $1.50 of additional benefit in the economy. you have a money machine and if that is the case we should just print a lot of money and we are continually getting more money by printing money and handing it out. that is obviously not true. the question is do we want economic return and activity or do we want investments that lead to growth? you can take the same dollar and give it to a low-wage worker and

they would likely spend it in the local economy and it would produce additional activity right now. but that dollar, if instead invested somewhere else, is likely to invest in long-term economic growth that advances the economy and makes everyone better off over the long run. the question is do we have to trade off? i would argue increasing the income tax credit or even going as far as a wage subsidy to replace minimum wages is a much better way of increasing low-wage earners' income. it is going to affect different places differently. you were saying in the south that people would be able to come off of government programs as a result of increased wages, that is only for the workers who cap their jobs. the south will be more largely affected by the federal minimum wage, you will see much more

employment laws in the south and see increases in the use of government safety net programs. robert froms arkansas, he is a business owner. percentages that are to workers comp and unemployment, the percentages cut so outrageous that the bigger companies were able to pull themselves completely out because they refused to pay 15% on a carpenter. the payroll system is broken. i don't hear anyone talking about it. people are in the shadows. $15 that bothers me, i pay more than that myself. what if you are liable for anyone who comes on your job cap any check you have written, my unemployment rate went to 14.8%.

nobody seems to be talking about this. we have but undocumented workers , which we will knock it into. they were allowed to work for decades because of the shadows going on. you can write all of the loss you want, but if they are not enforced, no company, if you have a percentage, every employee should pay them. federal employees, federal government, they backed out. when the government closed, there was not unemployment for these people. guest 2: the caller brings up a good point that a lot of people miss. there are payroll expenses that are put on the employer in addition to the taxis that are put on the worker. cost june employer to hire someone is 40% larger than the actual cost of the worker.

is closer to wage $20 per hour when it gets implemented. guest 1: i agree that robert brings up a good point. we do have an issue with enforcement. when you raise labor standard, it is only as good as its enforcement. if nobody has the incentive to follow the labor standard because they know the chances they are going to get caught not doing it are solo, that is a problem. -- so low, that is a problem. like minimum wage are very low in the u.s. what that means is it results in a huge quantity of wage theft. that is anytime an employer does not pay a worker what they should get. they don't pay minimum wage,

they don't pay overtime. boss late at night, your says clock out and then clean up, that is the employer stealing the value of your time. that sort of behavior is widespread. we estimate that low-wage workers lose more than $50 billion a year as a result of wage theft. it, theput a point on fbi estimates the total value of all property theft, larceny, burglaries comes out to $13 billion a year. wage theft is a much broader problem. when we think about all of the resources that go into fighting property theft compared to the resources that go into fighting wage theft, there is a large disparity. oureally need to improve

enforcement system to make sure the labor standards are in place. host: a minimum wage earner in kansas. hello. caller: hello. i heard you touch on this earlier. living keepsof going up and our wages do not. thank you. host: this is part of the feature of the bill, tying it to that kind of information, or at least that data. guest 1: that is a really good point. you increase the minimum wage and if you do not continue with automatic updates, the purchasing power just erodes overtime. basis, we have inflation in our economy. that is not a bad thing but we need wages to keep up so purchasing power does not erode. that is why it is so unbelievably important to have indexing.

right now isage 30% lower in real terms than it was 50 years ago. that is the power of this erosion. it is a very good point, it is something that can be easily fixed. host: one of the features it would tie to median wage growth. guest 2: which is stronger than the actual cost of living growth. you would see the minimum wage rise faster than the cost of living. the issue with that is if you -- index itmum wage to inflation or the median wage growth, you are going to increase the incentive for employers to find other ways of producing goods and services that do not use low-wage labor. the issue is that in 2010, there was about 2.5% of low-wage

earners that earned the exact federal minimum wage. that number is less than .5%. the is over an 80% drop in last eight years. less people are making the minimum wage now because the general rise of wages has increased over time. it has not been rising very fast, that is deftly true. but the fact of the matter is if to index the minimum wage inflation, -- the ones who have studied this have shown an impact on. host: do you think it will go anywhere? guest 2: i am not a politician what i will say i heard over the weekend that they are increasing the number of years it is going to take effect. if you increase the number of years it is going to have an effect because you think

businesses need to make more time to accommodate that, you are saying the minimum wage has an effect. if the minimum wage does not have an effect, let's just raise it to $15 or $20 right now and be done with it. believe itabsolutely will pass the house of representatives. will it the senate? it should. we know minimum wage is extremely popular. republicans, regular people, they understand a minimum wage is a good thing. people want an increase in minimum wage. heidi shierholz is with the economic policy institute. she served in the obama administration has a chief economist. michael farren is with mercatus center at george mason university. thank you for joining us this

morning. guest 1: thank you so much. host: that is it for our program today. journal comesgton your way tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. ♪ [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] newhe u.s. house meets at eastern today for brief speeches. members will be back at 2:00 eastern for work on 14 bills including sanctions against for theabian officials assassination of "washington post" columnist jamal khashoggi. ofre will be a citation

attorney general william barr and commerce secretary wilbur ross for contempt of congress. live coverage of c-span. before the house can take up the contempt resolution, it has to go through the rules committee, which will decide the parameters for debate. you can watch it live at 5:00 eastern on a companion network c-span3, online at cspan.org, or listen live with of the c-span radio app. robert mueller's testimony before congress, originally set for wednesday, has been pushed back a week. he will answer questions on his investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. the hearings will be an hour longer than originally planned. you can watch coverage on c-span3, online at cspan.org, and listen with a free c-span radio app. >> in 1979, a small network with

an unusual name rolled out a big idea, let viewers make their own minds. c-span brings you unfiltered content of congress and beyond. a lot has changed in 40 years, but today the big idea is more relevant than ever. on television and online, c-span is are unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. but you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> democratic presidential candidate senator kamala harris was in new hampshire over the weekend and stopped by house party to talk to voters. >> now, democratic presidential candidate senator kamala harris of california speaks to voters at a campaign house party in guilford, new hampshire. this is just under an hour. [applause] n hour.