>> sunday, afterwards with journalist natalie >> those kids don't have the background knowledge. it's not they can't make a difference. they make inferences in their lives all the time. toddlers can make an inference. that's not the problem so much as they lack the background knowledge and vocabulary to understand the passage. and that has been a big problem, overlooked. >> watch afterwards sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> joining us on newsmakers this week, david mcintosh, former congressman, president of tax cuts for growth. joining us is alex eisenstadt and greg corti.

mr. mcintosh, to start things off, the last thing congress and the white hosted before leaving for the august recess, they passed and signed the bipartisan deal for budget caps to delay the debt ceiling. senator rand paul called it the death of the tea party. if you think the tea party is dead or dying? david: i think the leadership in the house and senate decided it's dead and ignoring it. although i was pleased that over half the house republicans voted no, even with pressure from the white house and their leadership to vote yes for it. but it's true. republicans have become big spenders. at least the house and senate leadership republicans, just like the democrats. and the tea party started out as an independent group. they lined up with republicans because they were smaller government, but they were suspicious of politicians, and i think that sentiment is very much alive. david: if you had to describe it

today, how would you describe president trump's fiscal legacy? david: my view is president trump worked hard to reduce spending and they were ignored by republican allies in the house and senate, and couldn't get better deals than what they got. so right now, it's building debt. and that's going to be a big problem for our country. we've been saying that for probably a decade now. the economy, fortunately, is expanding, which i think is the trump legacy. that expansion lets you absorb more and get a chance to get to a balanced budget. but you have to put the brakes on spending to do that. >> you put the responsibility on the part of republicans in the house and senate. but there's also a republican in the white house. two what do you attribute this change in attitude towards deficit spending other than the

fact republicans were against it when there was a democratic president, and now for it when there's a republican president? david: i see a couple of them -- couple of dynamics. the omb is a deficit hawk. they work very hard to try to keep that lower. i kind of think with the presidents encouragement and approval. but you've got the big spenders, particularly in the senate, the procreative's on the republican side, are happy to spend larger amounts. they think it's good politics and they don't mind if some of the money goes to democratic causes and some don't. you also have a complicated dynamic among republicans right havewhere defense talks basically made a deal for about five years now with the democrats. if you let us increase the defense spending where we think it should be, we'll sign on to your domestic spending, let you decide where that goes and what

it's for. that second-half cuts against everything they campaigned on, reducing welfare, the size of government. about their goal of having a strong, robust defense department, let's them trump that and sign up for spending goals. you guys have since refashioned yourself as a pro organizationrump -- ahead of the 2020 election. i was wondering if you would explain that decision you made. david: yeah, and let me go back a little bit. you're right. we had other candidates that were club supported candidates that we preferred. but when president trump at the nomination, we stepped back and did things that supported him in pennsylvania and wisconsin, where we had candidates running for senate. then when he got elected, he started governing on our agenda

in many respects. the tax-cut bill, repeal and replace, obamacare, cutting regulations and making that a primary goal. trade was an area where we still weren't aligned, but he started to articulate a goal of 00 tariffs, but i'm going to use tariffs to bring people to the table. we've accommodated that and said tariffs are costly and hurt the economy, but we'll support you and try to negotiate for the much better trade deal. answer, he'sm line governed as a free-market conservative for the most part. it's those policy results that dictate where we go and where we align. looking forward to the next election, he clearly is going to be the most free-market candidate there is. and he's going to be up against a democrat, almost all of whom are now starting to move towards

socialism or very radical big government, leftist, non-free-market proposals. so the contrast is going to be really clear. so forever goal, promoting policies, president trump being reelected makes sense. so we're aligning with that and himg things that would help position himself to be in a good place to run for reelection. >> speaking of 2020, now 15 months away, do you know how much the club is going to spend in the cycle? and how much of that is presidential versus congressional? david: let me share what we're doing now because it gets to the answer. president trump has his own campaign, his own super pac educated to that. he didn't really need club for growth money being spent on his behalf. but what we could do is highlight the chaos that's going on in the democratic field. but to do that, and alex

reported on that, knows some of the things we've done, we have to think how do we communicate to democrats in their primary about their issues and their values? very different. we kind of started by recognizing none of them are going to be progrowth on free-market candidates. but what will they care about on their terms, and how can we understand that and bring that information to bear? with joe biden, we ended up doing an ad that highlighted his discord between his earlier positions on racial positions and current positions. kamala harris picked that up, ran with it in the debate, and it's been something he's had to deal with since then. we knew allh beto, about him in the texas race against ted cruz, and that he really wasn't the progressive innovative guy he was projecting himself to be. he, in the past, had done a lot

of things to help big business. again, to the disadvantage of poor, hispanic people in el paso. we highlighted that so the voters in iowa would know that. we decided the best thing the club could do in this stage is bring forward those two things, information, messages, let them affect what is going on on the democratic side of the primary next year. you were asking how much we'll spend. i couldn't tell you how much it will be. but i think what we'll end up doing is focus on areas where nobody else is bringing forward a message, and fits with our alignment of fiscal conservatism and broadcast the differences. >> do you think it will be more than what you spend in the 16 cycle? -- the 2016 cycle? david: i think it will be on par

with that. we spent a lot. >> ballpark? $14 million-$15 million in 2016. i don't think it will be that much. we'll end up focusing on senate and house races, the bulk of the resources. it won't be as much, but it will be significant. >> one of the strongest arguments president trump has for reelection is the economy. but we've had a number of signals from markets and consumer confidence that maybe things this growth cycle w'ere on has run its course. what tools does the president have left in his toolbox, after already cutting taxes and regulations -- we've seen a decrease in interest rates. we have a deficit spending fueling the economy right now. if we do end up in a recessionary cycle, what else can the president do? what else can congress do?

or is he really at the end of his rope? david: great question, gregory. i think the key there now is in the trade around. on -- trade ground. one, the fundamentals are swollen. you're seeing volatility in the marketplace as people are projecting where we're going to be 18 months ago -- from now. where do i put my money? they put it in treasuries. that's cratedemporary inversion. but the fundamentals of production, economic growth, on appointment, are still -- unemployment, are still very, very good. ned that i think is causing volatility in the market space, the president's strategy in china imposed tariffs on china, and those are ultimately a cost to the american people. that one point, i think he articulated it.

we're doing well now. let me use this tool. i understand the tariffs might be a drag on the economy, but now is the time to do it because both sides will benefit. >> hasn't he tried to go both ways on that? he delayed implement and tariffs saying he didn't want consumer staffs to pay. david: right, which i think is recognizing that the tariffs are a drag right now on economic growth. they're -- i wouldn't say a small drag. they weren't as significant as other things. means is they window is narrowing for when we have to get the new trade agreement. when that happens, then i think you see another boost to economic growth, sustain the cycle we're in for a number of years because you've got certainty, basically, in the world economy about trade with

the united states. and i'm actually confident the president is able to deliver on that. it's taken time. the chinese basically called him on it and said we think you have to have an agreement in name, but we don't have to give you any subsidy -- substantive concessions. but trump called an audible. i'm not just going to sign an agreement that means nothing in reality but says we have an agreement. there has to be a real concession. china, by the way, is hurting worse than the united states. they're a dictatorship. they can last through the next election cycle, but it's also possible they'll get to the point where they see it as a win-win to meet us partly. >> would you say the united states is winning the trade war? david: i think the fact that china needs to consider

basically accepting international test intellectual property rights, changing their fundamental business model. now, butaying no right it's on the table for something they have to concede. that's a win. we're still in the middle of the back-and-forth of the negotiation. there's no clear winner, one way or the other. but the possibility of getting a good trade agreement is there. >> club for growth has been participating in a special election in north carolina next month. to what extent is that contest going to be national issues we've been discussing? and to what extent, given that this is a republican seat, is there pressure on the party to win this seat come next month? david: to your second question, i think there's tremendous pressure on the party. kevin mccarthy has laid out a plan to retake. loses, it will be much

harder next year. we are coordinating with what we --in the super pac with what both entities are aligned. we like dan bishop, the candidate. he's a strong, fiscal conservative. mccready is a democrat. he's actually very vulnerable on nonpartisan issues because he won't answer questions and it looks like he's hiding liberal views. and the voters are starting to sense that. so, i think in the one way, every election for congress has a local element. they have people they like and don't like. this one is starting to become nationalized. it's going to be, will a trump supporter, republican, be able to win what should be a republican seat against a democrat who tries to distance himself from nancy pelosi? tries to, but then has overwhelming support from

radical environmental groups aligned with some of the new green deal and the most radical elements of their agenda. so, i think it's a test. will a mainstream conservative republican, who supports the president, win against a democrat who claims not to be a socialist like everybody else, but in reality is supported by the same forces? >> you tend to get involved more often in open seats, but you haven't been afraid to challenge republicans in primaries. does your strategy change now that democrats are in control of the house of representatives? are you defending more seats? are you attacking more seats? david: yeah, that's a very good insight. we still kind of reserve that, if a republican is acting more like a democrat than a good free market conservative, we'll challenge an incumbent. waswe looked at this week

getting more progrowth candidates into the conference. so, we started with open seats where there will republican -- were republican to retirees. -- retirees. we identified good potential candidates there. then we looked at democrat seats where democrats won, but trump had carried the district. that's a great challenger race because the turnout will be more balanced, and a republican has a chance to win. so we'll engage in the primary to get a progrowth candidate who can carry that. and we have had to be on the defensive in a couple races. the democrats have their target list of sitting republicans that they think are still vulnerable. one of them is a great candidate, we think is going to win, but it's going to be a tough race, is it scott perry and pennsylvania. we've got a mix of all those. one of my favorite races is the

virginia seven, where dave lost. democrats have a strong incumbent. we've identified a strong potential candidate there and believe that it could be a bellwether of whether republicans can get the majority back. >> who are some republicans acting more like democrats? david: some of them are retiring. but one of them is elise stefanik, who has been put in charge of recruiting. you look at her voting record, she aligns much more closely with emigrants in congress than the majority of the republican conference. she's a likable person. people like her. but her voting record is not that strong. >> i know you put out a scorecard on members of congress. justin amash, independent, is somebody who has a 99% record with the club for growth on the things that you score. are you going to be supporting him in 2020? david: you're right.

justin has a great record on our economic issues. he basically made a political misstep in calling for president trump's impeachment. i think he's wrong on the merits on that. but also, that means i don't think he's a viable candidate on that. we look for ideology. are they promote test committed to progrowth agenda? and are they electable? >> we've got about five minutes left. >> president trump held a rally in new hampshire, talked up candidacy of corey lewandowski. should he enter the senate race, does he represent the kind of candidate club for growth would support? david: we haven't met with corey yet, and we're going to and we'll find out after that interview. we'd like to see what he's going to campaign on. is it fiscal issues? or is it social issues we don't

engage on? it would put the democrats on defense in the senate race, everyone assumed would not be a race this year. as, when you think about it, it's always better to be on offense than defense. and potentially, corey could achieve that in new hampshire. >> for maybe one question that we'll ask you to put on your other hat, cofounder of the federalist society. what is the mix here of economic that theocial issues, supreme court was a very animating force in president trump's election the first time around. please of the kind of supreme court justices i'm going to nominate. can that issue still propel his base to the polls, or do you need to make the economic argument you've been making? conventional so wisdom is if the economy is strong, the president will be.

reelected there is -- will be reelected. there is data going back multiple decades that will be the case. so, the economic issue is always really important. but your point is a good one. the courts became a symbol on a lot of the social issues because the court had driven issues on marriage, issues on life. those are ones we don't engage in. but i think president trump successfully harnessed that conservative momentum by picking really good potential justices and campaigning on that. i see that happening again. i would project that one, he'll want to make that another issue. and i suspect the democrats will want to make their view a central part of the campaign, given what happened on the last supreme court nomination, where you saw a very stark divide between the party.

not about confidence, and it ended up being a character assassination. but in the end, i think the democrats justified character assassination because they didn't want the principal of a conservative justice on the court. >> social issues? or what kind of business decisions? david: by the way, we do engage on confirmations because a lot of business decisions are at stake. regulating the internet, right? the court is going to decide the use of government power to nationalize industries, which some of the democrats are calling for. those could be decided by the supreme court. it goes beyond social issues. and it's also about who decides in our system? do we want to have the constitutional system we've had, where decisions are mostly done in the elected branches, and the

court, as the chief justices? -- chief justice says? or do we want a super legislature to enact progressive, socialist, whatever label, legislation that doesn't have majority support? that's really what the court comes down to. are we going to have separation of powers and a constitutional government that limits what the court does? erao we go towards an where the court becomes a super legislature? conservatives strongly believe the role of the court is limited to interpreting the laws and not making it. >> if there's an opening on the supreme court next year, should mitch mcconnell move to fill any vacancy with the president's nomination? david: absolutely. if the president has the opportunity to fill that vacancy, he should do it, pick a

strong nominee, and the senate should do its work to confirm it. >> one more question each. >> you've been involved in the conservative movement for some time. the nra has been going through a lot of turmoil, and i know you're on the outside, but do you believe there needs to be a shakeup at the nra? and what is the future of the nra at this point? david: the nra stands for a value that is central to conservatism. it's the second amendment, but fidelity to constitutional liberties and freedoms. i think they're going to get through the season and emerge as a very strong organization. from the outside, i wouldn't want to be suggesting what they do or how they do it. that's something that's up to them, their board, their president, but i have confidence that they will be able to get through that and be a strong organization. >> one issue we haven't talked about is immigration, which i

know is in a core issue for club for growth. but conservatives have, in the past, especially economic conservatives, have wanted strong immigration to help fuel the labor pool. where do you see the current immigration environment? yet --there room still we've been waiting a decade for some sort of comprehensive immigration reform that would reconcile interests that would people on the right side of the spectrum had? david: your right, club for growth stays out of the immigration debate. our members are divided in the way you describe it. some believe in robust immigration and markets for labor. others believe it's a national security issue, the wall and that represents that. so, we don't take a position on that one way or the other. the most interesting thing i've seen were remarks the president made recently that he was

actually in favor of robust legal immigration, but wanted to stop illegal immigration. that's not really a compromise. it's a different way of looking at that issue that gets beyond the current rhetoric of good or bad, wall or no wall. it puts together a more coherent approach that recognizes illegal immigration that's good for the country. i was fascinated when i heard him say that, and i think it could end up changing the dynamic of that issue. issues whereother you take that same approach they are divided on? david: yes, and it's less a division then discipline to stay on the economic issues. we don't engage on social issues, marriage issues, right to life issues. and that's from the founding of the club for growth. and we're very careful to make sure we don't engage on those

issues. are a couplethere of gay republicans who have very good records on economic issues. my view is the club for growth can be very comfortable endorsing someone like that if they're the candidate that can win the race. a lot ofe other hand, our candidates are strongly pro-life champions. and we're happy that what they do on the economic issue and they conclude that the whole spectrum of conservative issues is what they care about. >> we'll have to ended their. david mcintosh, thank you for being on newsmakers this week. david: pleasure, as always. >> now we continue with the roundtable portion of the program. alex, known for its heavy spending and its packs and super

pac's, what stuck out for you from what mr. mcintosh said about the club's strategy for 2020? >> what was interesting is he was talking about it was almost like meddling in the democratic presidential primary. you heard him talk about they went after better or, how they went -- beto o'rourke, how they went after joe biden. this is something you don't see other republican groups doing right now. other groups are sort of husbanding the resources, waiting for the democratic nominee to be picked. but what you see is the club for growth selecting issues and going after democrats to try to metal and shape that race ash that race.nd shape >> i agree. i always thought of the club for growth as the sort of business oriented end of the tea party

movement, tea party meets chamber of commerce. they were anti-trump in the beginning. they were neutral in the general election, 2016. and now they've come around full-circle to supporting him even though we heard the reservations they had about spending and tariffs. but they're trying to reconcile with trump. he's going to be the republican nominee regardless of what happens. so we don't have any alternatives in the democratic primary, and really trying to shape up this general election as being trump's, progrowth, free-market, with the exception of trade issue policies, versus what they will characterize as extreme socialism by the democrats. >> what about on the congressional side? he talked about spending in the special election, calling it something that needs to be done if republicans are going to retake the majority in the

house. is that how the republican congressional committee is thinking about this, that it's do or die in the special elections? >> it definitely seems to be a race of people are increasingly focused on, partly because there's no races going on right now. but you are going to see a tremendous amount of focus on this race because people tend to see these special elections as bellwethers up for the election season. you can bet there's a lot of spending from congressional groups. moree also likely to see from the white house because they know if democrats take this republican seat, it would look bad for the gop next year. >> you asked about his judicial philosophy and background with the federalist society. why? >> i think the premise of the question was the supreme court, those social issues, were a big

animating force and bringing coalitions trump needed to bring in his tent in 2016, fiscal evangelicals, catholic voters, that prototypical white working class voter. and he won them over despite a more checkered personal history in terms of marriage and being a new york guy. he won over people in other parts of the country with this bold idea of having a supreme court lift, telegraphing something no president has done before. here are my ninees. i was curious about whether that strategy could continue to work in every election effort, or is this really all about the economy kind of election? the problem with the economy we're seeing, we're not quite sure which direction is heading. if trump is able to continue these gains, he might be in good shape. but there are warning signs and

there are analysts that suggest a 33% chance of having a recession begin before the next election. >> coming back to his first answer about the deal on spending caps and lifting the debt ceiling. has president trump one over fiscal conservatives? and it did that deal do anything to shake that support? >> you know, you almost get the sense that there are fiscal conservatives who are uncomfortable with the actions that this white house is taking. you get the sense that under normal circumstances, club for growth would be uncomfortable with his fiscal policies. but we're in a situation right now where the trunk takeover of the republican party and conservative movement is just about complete. so, maybe there are things trump does people are uncomfortable with, but they're basically going along with it. >> i think that's absently right.

-- absolutely right. it was easier to do when there was a democrat in the white house. it was easier to rail against deficit spending. but now we have a republican in the white house who is giving republicans in congress two thirds of what they want. more military spending, tax cuts. if the price is domestic spending, a lot of democrats in congress are going along with it. that was the dynamic mr. mcintosh described. it really pose questions about which party is more serious about deficit spending? at what point to we have to reckon with this? economically, are relatively well now. that is historically when you should start to pay down the debt. president clinton used the peace dividend in the cold war an increase in productivity we saw from the.com boom to actually be able to have surplus budgets and a couple of years. with these trillion dollar

deficits, there's nothing like that on the horizon and that's one of the issues the club for growth is going to have to reconcile itself, regardless of who is in power in the future. >> we'll have to ended their. -- end it there. thank you for joining us. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ has been years, c-span providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.