>> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, marion smith from the victims of communism memorial foundation, on the hong kong pro-democracy protests against china. also, voting machine security. michigan professor j alex holderman joins us. about international conservation work. we sure to watch washington journal live sunday morning. >> washington journal marks are available as c-span's online store. go to c-span door -- c-span store.org. see all of the c-span products. >> 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. >> 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. to 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 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 appropriators 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 now, where defense talks have 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, a strong, robust defense department, let's them trump that and sign up for spending goals. >> you guys have since refashioned yourself as a

what tools does the president have left in his toolbox after already cutting taxes and regulations, we have seen a decrease in interest rates? we have seen deficit spending. if we do -- and up in a recessionary cycle, what else can the president do and congress do or is it really at the end of his rope? >> great question. i think the key is there a now is in the trade around. one are the fundamentals of the economy are still strong. you see a lot of volatility in the marketplace and the stock market as people are projecting where we will be 18 months from now, where's a safe place to put my money? they put it in the treasuries. but, the fundamentals of reduction of economic growth,

jobs and unemployment are still very, very good. what is happening i think that is causing a lot of volatility in the marketplace is the president's strategy with china and basel would impose significant tariffs on china. and those are a cost to the american people. at one point, i think he articulated it that we are doing well now, let me use this tool and understand the tariffs maybe a little drag on the economy, but now is the time to do it. in the end, we will get a better trade deal and both sides will benefit. >> has he had it both ways, he and he did not want the tariffs to be imposed before christmas? tariffsnizing that the are a drag right in on economic a smalli would not say drag, not as significant as

other things like higher taxes and more regulations. it ist really means is narrowing when we get the trade-in. and boost sustainment cycle and you have certainty basically in the world's economy. that theonfident president is able to deliver and it has taken time and the chinese have called him on it and said we think you have to have an agreement in name, but we do not give you any substantive concessions. call an audible. i am not going to just sign an agreement that means nothing of reality but says web and agreement, there has to be a ro concession. china, by the way

need to consider they are accepting intellectual property rights. it's a win. the back the middle of and forth. there is no clear winner one way or the other. the possibility of getting a good trade agreement is still 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. if he loses, it will be much harder next year. we are coordinating with what we do 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. but we looked at this week was getting more progrowth candidates into the conference. so, we started with open seats where there were republican 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 democrats 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 issues, social issues, that the 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? david: right, so conventional wisdom is if the economy is strong, the president 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 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? or do we go towards an era 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? and is there room still yet -- 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. >> are there other issues where 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. for example, there are a couple 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. so, on the other hand, a lot of 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 will have to ended there.

-- and it there. >> now we continue with the roundtable portion of the program. alex, club for growth, known for its heavy spending and its pac's 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 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 meddle and shape that race. >> 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. you're also likely to see more 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 nominees.

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 trump 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 absolutely right. it was easier to do when there was a democrat in the white house. now 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? look, times, 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 dot 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 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] >> for 40 years, c-span is converting america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington dc and around the country so you can make up your mind. c-span by cable in 1979,

is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> tonight, and tuesday, new york times staff photographer doug mills talks about photos covering president trump. >> he enjoys having us around. despite his constant comments forth, he news and so enjoys having us around. it helps drive his message and the news of the day. constantly driving that message. >> tonight, at 8:00 eastern, on c-span's q&a. >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and

policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, marion smith from the victims of communism memorial foundation. on the hong kong pro-democracy protests against china. also voting machine security. when university of michigan computer science and engineering professor. a previous post talks about his international conservation work and television series. we should watch c-span's washington journal at 7 a.m. eastern monday marketing. -- monday morning. >> president trump talked about afghanistan, china, the economy, israel and other issues in new jersey as he was heading back to the white house. this is almost 40 minutes.