strategist discusses social security reform . we also take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning, it's monday, november 33rd, 2020. the first coronavirus vaccine, likely to be approved in a matter of weeks. the question of distribution is becoming an important one. scientist seemed to agree that the frontline health workers and most vulnerable she get the vaccine first, it's less clear who should come next. this morning we want to hear your thoughts. what populations or job sectors should be given priority when it comes to distributing the coronavirus vaccine.

phone lines split up as usual this morning. democrats, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call in. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text. that number, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. you can catch up with us on social media, twitter and facebook. a very good monday morning to you. you can start calling in now. theheadlines on this topic, first use of the vaccine maybe december 13. 40 million doses said to be available by the end of the month. that from the front page of "usa today." "frontline gets the first vaccine doses, but then who? that's the question we are asking this morning, asking you

to be in the position of setting the priority, how would you do it? turning to the cdc webpage there, i q&a on how the cdc is making its covid-19 vaccine recommendations. making those disease vaccine recommendations based on the input from the advisory committee on immunization practices. it's a federal advisory committee made of medical and public health experts who develop recommendations on the use of vaccines in the u.s. those meetings are open to the public and on that same webpage, if the vaccine is limited, these other the groups being considered at least for early vaccination. health care professionals and personnel, of course up first. workers in critical and essential industries are the next people at high risk. and then people over 65 years

old. i want to focus for a second on the people at risk for severe illness due to underlying medical conditions. the cdc also has a list of what those medical conditions would be that could put someone at increased risk of severe illness and covid-19. here are the risk factors. the things that might be considered to put you in a higher priority group. cancer, chronic kidney disease, copd, heart conditions, obesity, severe obesity, pregnancy, sickle cell disease, smoking, type two the list of those health conditions that put somebody at increased risk of severe illness if they get covid-19. asking you this morning, how would you prioritize it. what would you do? eric is up first, georgia. good morning. there wouldabout

be, first of all, i would educate the public and come out every day with public notices. such as the vaccine, let people know that the vaccine, even if you get the vaccine, you can still be infected with covid-19. you can still spread it. that's very important. people still have to wear a mask. this is something people need to know now. just because you get the vaccine, you still have to wear a mask. but to the question, limited priority to begin with. how would you prioritize the u.s. public? i would prioritize it by people who actually wanted. people in the medical profession will be able to get first. people will be working around people who are sick. that's normal. anyone should know that.

after that, like i said, people going to be skeptic, but they need to know that the vaccine, it's like i said, people need to still will be able to get infected. i would ask the american people. istever section of society the sickest and its most deadly citiesould go to the first, where the people are crowded together. and i would go to teachers, people like that. but just because that's what i want, that doesn't mean the people are going to want that. republican, state college, ben, how would you prioritize vaccine distribution? mostr: obviously the vulnerable need to come first. those in nursing homes and with underlying conditions like you mentioned at the beginning of the program.

second, those that care for them. i feel like a group that sometimes gets overlooked is frontline workers, people who work in grocery stores, hotels. truck drivers through the whole pandemic, frankly when we didn't know what was going on, they were still putting themselves out there and are continuing to do that to this day. they should come after those that are truly at the highest risk. and then after that i feel the previous caller alluded to the fact that there are going to be people who are skeptical of this vaccine. i don't think it's going to be the most -- the whole population of the united states is the most vulnerable. i think you will have a significant portion of the don't choose to get the vaccine. college town,in a can i ask how old you are? inler: i'm 24, i graduated

2019. host: from penn state? caller: yes sir. host: where do you think college kids should come on the list? right now that age, that population, it's one of the populations seeing the most transmissions, if not the most severe illnesses and deaths from it. to put allon't want current students in a basket and say that they are all careless, i know that some are taking it very seriously. especially those with a -- older relatives. but i think they should come down the line. again, some of them might be resistant to get the vaccine. not because, as the data shows, as far as i know, they are not at risk for getting the most sick from covid. it's them transmitting it to their relatives or people in the community.

not everyone that lives in state college is a 20-year-old college kid. they should definitely be high on the list, but not the top of the list. call thank you for the from state college this morning. mathematicians are trying to game out the numbers here when it comes to vaccinations. scientific american over the weekend had a story about it. one part of that story that touches on some of what he's talking about, because covid-19 is lethal for those over 65 and with health problems but is spread rapidly and widely, a healthy young adults is more likely to recover. they face two conflicting priorities.

host: these are the trade-offs, the back-and-forth we are asking you about this morning. ray is in homestead, pennsylvania. caller: i'm probably the most cynical one you are going to get on here, but i don't think anybody in their right mind would think that the first persons who are going to be declared as essential are the politicians. they will get their cup first. the vaccine will be distributed to the states. so, first the state politicians will say we are essential, our families are essential. our donors are essential. what's left will go to the local politicians to distribute. they will make themselves essential people. i know i'm cynical, but that's the way this country has been going for years and years. politicians will take their cuts. host: let's game that out.

do you think that joe biden is essential? should be high on the list? well, he's the president, just like donald trump, he would get the best care no matter what. other politicians, they will take their cuts first and what little is left may go to someone who needs it. do you consider nancy pelosi and chuck schumer essential? any of i don't think them are essential. the other politicians will make themselves essential in a matter what. they are going to take their cuts and they are going to get there vaccinations first. like i said, everything that's left, you might get a few nurses and doctors and a few old people after they are done, but it isn't going to go the way that people think. a plan developed by the

national academy of medicine showing how they would , how they the vaccine would do it if it was being rationed. the first would be frontline health workers, cleaners as well, and first responders. then they would follow, those with underlying conditions. and those with more chronic conditions, 65 and older and those living in group facilities. the next group down, phase two, all people over 65, critical workers in high-risk situations such as teachers, childcare workers, those with underlying conditions that put them in a moderately higher risk. and all people under 65 in prisons, jails, and attention centers. that would be the next level down. and the next level beyond that,

if the vaccine is proving to be safer children, and people that work in industries such as hotels and banks. the next level down would be everyone else in the u.s. that is sort of their prioritization plan. we are asking for your plan. once we get past the first highest level, it's a trickier question. we want to hear your thoughts this morning. dan jackson. what do you think? caller: i would appreciate very much if people would accept more the complexities within we are working. first of all, how short can you say that you are about the test? the test, it turns out, is almost 40% false negatives. i don't remember the number of false positives. host: let's set the testing

aside for a second. we want to focus on this plan. with vaccines coming down the line. with theame thing vaccine. the vaccine, we really don't whenhow efficacious it is given to a broad population. what you are hearing from the company now is only one thing. that it is authorized by the fda , which means as an emergency procedure we will find out what it does when it does it. all of these plans that you see today are going to change as you find out the good side and the bad side of this vaccine. i wish everyone would take this into consideration. stick around, in her final air we -- final hour we will be covering the pharmaceutical industry and diving into this process of approval and the latest news. that is happening from 8:00 to 8:45 this morning.

when it comes to efficacy, some news this morning of yet another coronavirus vaccine being developed. this by the university of oxford and the british swedish pharmaceutical giant, astrazeneca. announced today, 90% effective when administered at a half dose and a full booster dose later. this follows the results from pfizer and moderna. likely to be cheaper, they write, and the british vaccine doesn't need to be stored at subzero temperatures, but can be kept in an ordinary refrigerator . that news just out this morning. more on that in the 8:00 hour. john, martins ferry. how would you prioritize this? caller: that's my question. i suffer from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

i'm on 24 hour oxygen. i take steroids and antibiotics. is, will the vaccine itself, or even the flu vaccine, help me? or will it be too much for my weakened immune system? thank you. ohio.john, robert, washington, independent, good morning. four or five months ago they had the solution. not so much a vaccine, but ini's are. what'd they have to say about using negative ionizers? vaccineicking with the first, that's what we are weeks away from. who should get it first and who

should get it next? caller: the only thing i have to , it's scaryccines by itself. , the aidsto d.c. virus, years ago [indiscernible] host: all right, that's robert in d.c. oregon, go ahead. caller: how are you, today? host: doing well. caller: i'm not really of this party, but i'm going to tell you what i feel, i have immune deficiency called igg for. it causes bumps on your body and it can cause also cancer. you can read it online. my concern for the people that

have immune deficiencies like me , my concern is that the vaccine -- what to they call it? anyhow, i'm sorry. what i'm concerned about is the that havethese people immune deficiencies, like the gentleman who was talking about the other medicines there. is thehow, my concern safety of these people that have immune deficiencies or some kind of other problems. from a few comments twitter.

"the most vulnerable will be those who work in steel." "i would not be so quick to dispense to all health care workers until we know it is safe." not beio, "it should based upon age, occupation, health, or race. that's greg in cleveland this morning and one more from deliver tony and, those of the highest risk of developing severe infection should go first. health care workers are most likely and then the next in line are those most likely to die from it. that's the question we are asking this morning, give us what your priority would be when it comes to a limited amount of vaccine supply in the american population, how would you break it down? phone calls split up as usual by party. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002.

i do want to go through some other news this morning about the upcoming biden administration and the cabinet that joe biden is setting up. the president-elect is planning to announce that he has selected one of his longest-serving policy advisors according to three people familiar with the announcement. jake sullivan, another top-five advisor expected to be named as national security advisor according to two people familiar with the announcement. "the washington post" with more insight on a biden count -- cabinet, linda thomas greenfield as the nominee for ambassador to the united states, giving an african-american woman one of the most high-profile diplomatic posts in government. that is according to their sources. a little bit know about tony blinking, a staff member for biden while he was chairman of

the foreign senate relations committee, worked on the presidential campaign and during the obama administration he was the national security advisor and deputy secretary of state, cofounding a political strategy firm along with michelle flournoy. she is widely considered to be in contention to serve as defense secretary in a biden administration and would be the first woman to take that role if picked. that announcement, that formal announcement expecting to come tomorrow. that's what the post is reporting today. back to your phone calls asking you how you would prioritize covid vaccine distributions. gregory out of california, how would you do it? think are you still with us? yes, i think -- host: are you still with us?

caller: yes, i am. i'm comfortable with what i've read about the priorities being set by the cdc and the generals in charge of distribution. first, the front-line workers. then prioritizing the most vulnerable. the one monkeywrench for me, ,alling from central california my bishop, the catholic bishop of fresno, stated yesterday that be allowed for catholics to take from -- take the vaccine because it's made from aborted stem cells. i would be curious for you to ask your guests this morning if that is the case and what additional information we can get on that. host: i will ask that, thanks for bringing it up. stick around, 8:00 on the east coast we will be talking with

andrew of bloomberg about that. johnny, milwaukee, independent, you are next. thank you for having me speak today. my concern is, and as the priority should be, systematically sending it out to health care workers first. first-line defenders, as well as -- i would like to suggest what one other person made, given that 50% of the people in that category will see how the vaccine works. secondly, i would like to, for people who are sick, make the treatment that donald trump took to get them over the hump to the next level. i hope everybody understands that we are in a bad cyst -- bad situation right now and we need cooperation from the trump administration so the biden administration can take over and get rid of this scourge and the

american public so that people can get back to work and get back on track. host: before you go, one of the earlier collars said that those living in cities should be prioritized and that racial considerations should be taken into account, considering who is being impacted by coronavirus and covid-19. what are your thoughts on that as someone who lives in milwaukee? >> i think that's a serious concern. however, because of the nature of the way this vaccine will be distributed, we have to take all of that into account in order to think -- to pick. whoever makes that decision, it will be hard no matter who it is. big cities, people who have pre-existing conditions, it's going to be a crucial issue to making that decision. dr. fauci, as well as the biden administration coming in, they need to coordinate that right away to save lives.

we have people dying unnecessarily. our economy is suffering. that's johnny, milwaukee. an article earlier this month here on the issue of prioritization. this is what they wrote in one of their lead stories. "frontline health workers, likely to be at the head of the line. there is support among public health experts to make special efforts to deliver it for early to the black, latino, native hawaiian, pacific islander

host: a story on the topic that we are talking about, vaccine priority. what would be yours? hollis, amarillo, good morning. caller: the health care workers the first people to get it. because. host: because why? caller: they defend everyone, without them we will have no one to take care of us. ont: everyone seems to agree that, health care workers should be first in line. who is second, third, fourth? what comes next? how would you prioritize that? think: i would say, i that the people who have, you

,now, the copd and, you know the people who are sick, you know what i mean? don't think it should be going by race or whatever. i'm a black man and i don't think it should be going by race . it should be going by who is the sickest in the nation. that's who needs to get it first. host: gracie on facebook writes in this morning that she thinks school-age children should get the vaccine first, as the children are our future. that's what she writes. children are obviously not the ones who are getting the sickest from covid-19, but she think that should be a priority. what do you think about where children should fall? i agree. this is going to be a decision, you know? the children definitely should get it.

you understand? they are the people who spread it real fast. all the school kids, this would be a very hard decision, very hard. i'm glad i don't have to make it. host: this is barbara out of winterhaven, florida, good morning. caller: i go along with everyone who should be up first, but also the american indian definitely. my husband and i are both 87. with kidney and a lot of other things. and i'm his health care worker. i need to be there with him to get him through this. over 65anyone that is and we are forgetting the teachers.

thank you. host: before you go, what if someone in your position is taking care of someone in that age group but it's a younger person taking care of that older person? do you think that person should because of the contact they have? should they be moved up in line? caller: yes. who else do you have, you know? day.k at my husband every i lost one husband and i don't know if i can go through that again. most people who are elderly and together so long, they love each other and they really need each other. their children need them. the grandchildren. themhave so much to tell about the world that is gone. thank you.

coming up on 7:30 on the east coast, we are talking about vaccine priorities. asking you to call in on phone lines. , democrats.00 (202) 748-8001, republicans. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 yesterday on "state of the union, the chief science officer of warp speed was on with jake tapper, talking about the timing of vaccine distribution. here's a little bit of that conversation. [video clip] >> pfizer submitted the emergency use application on friday and the committee is scheduled to meet december 10. this appears to be an extraordinary achievement. when do you expect the first person to be vaccinated? -- >> well, our plan is to be able to ship

vaccines to the immunization sites within 24 hours of approval. i would expect day to, on the 11th or the 12th of december. hopefully those will be the first people immunized across the united states, across all states, in all the areas where the state departments have told us where to deliver the vaccine. vaccinate 20o million in the month of november and 30 million per month after that. how many americans need to be vaccinated for life to be able to return to normal and when might that happen? >> normally, with the level of efficacy we have, 95 percent, 70% or so of the population would allow for true hued -- true herd immunity to take place. that would be something like the month of may or something like that.

forward hope and look to seeing that level of negative perception of the vaccine with people excepting it increasing. that's going to be critical to helping us before we can go back to a normal life. callstaking your phone this morning, asking you how you would prioritize covid vaccine distributions with vaccinations going well into the spring and early summer, we want to know who you think should be on the early side of that and who you think should wait. marietta, georgia, independent line, what do you think? as a descendent of the africans stolen and brought to this country against their will, the united states has never, ever done anything for us.

anything that they do, it bears watching. i don't trust it. i know about the tuskegee experiments and all the other andgs that this government scientists have done to black people against their will. i'm not taking it. my mother and i discussed it. the firstnt to be one. let white folks be the first ones to see how it goes. host: what would convince you to take it? caller: nothing. host: i don't trust you. i don't trust you. there's nothing in this history of this government that would make me want to trust it. i don't trust it. i -- i think any black person that don't know their history and how the united states has used black people as guinea pigs, that's insane. let the white folks take it

first. host: on twitter, "i would prioritize those with increased exposure to the general public, such as teachers, fast food workers, meat and agriculture workers and warehouse employees ." everyone knows -- "everyone knows the rich will get it first. then the football, basketball players. emergency workers, next. the poor and the black, last on the list. bes from virginia, "should risk-based distributed, based on pre-existing condition and a lottery for the rest of us." "essential people from profession to profession, i feel the military should be on the top of the list for getting the vaccine. i'm currently an active duty military member and my schedule hasn't changed since covid-19

started, so i worry about my safety each and every day, even when i travel for training out of state." comments about vaccine distribution and prioritization. one story yesterday from "the washington post," who took a look at how other countries are prioritizing .accine distribution the government is leaning towards distribution of the vaccine by age group. the over 80's, followed by the over 75's, followed by the over 65's

spending this first hour of "the washington journal," getting your thoughts on this issue. caller: good morning, how are you doing today? host: i'm doing well. one,r: my list, category first people to get it should be law enforcement, firemen, military, along with medical workers, hospital workers, prison and jail guards. seniors ind be the nursing homes in group homes that are most vulnerable. seniors withe medical conditions. fourth would be the public workers, including anybody who works in a grocery store or places that people have to go to be able to survive. fifth would be everybody else my

age. unlike that list that you showed , thee newspaper earlier last people on the list to get the vaccine would be anybody in jail. there's a reason they are in jail and they should be lowest priority. for the bit. that prisons are one place where this disease is spreading very quickly. caller: maybe they should have thought about that before they went out and broke the law. host: that's joe out of willoughby, ohio. janet, michigan, democratic line. good morning. i believe health care workers should get it first. then the front liners. i also believe college students, they are our future. they also are the ones out there

doing spring break. they are partying. even now they are not social distancing. i think they are carriers because they feel good and our young and i think they are bringing it home to the rest of their community, their family. i believe they should be may be maybe up there, number four in line. the rest of us, i believe the gentleman from ohio, the way he categorized it, he did it quite well. host: you say that those most at risk should be high up and that's what a lot of people are saying. that's what public health officials, medical officials are saying. those at increased risk include a lot of different conditions. one of those conditions that puts someone at increased risk of severe illness from covid's obesity and severe morbid obesity.

is au think that condition condition that should warrant someone moving closer to the front of the line for the vaccine? caller: [indiscernible] i believe. like your diabetes. you know? otherwise, just because you are obese, you can still be pretty healthy. i'm obese, but i have other underlying conditions, too. yeah, we should go by age, too. anybody over 70 should be i think vaccinated also first. right with the front-line workers. host: thank you for the call from michigan. pasadena, good morning.

here we go with the conspiracy thing, 99.9 percent of people survive this. the whole are missing point here. why get vaccinated against something that isn't going to kill you, most likely, 99.9%. far as who should get it? you will have a hard time finding a population that wants to take the vaccine. they should go ahead and whoever wants to take it first should get it first. there will be millions of doses in a couple of weeks. nobody is dying anyway. i mean, you know, there's a thousand here, thousand there, whatever. thing, they jump right to the vaccine. it's just garbage.

this is kelly on facebook talking about people that won't take the vaccine. will too many people refuse to get it, without herd immunity the vaccine is useless. after watching a friend of mine struggle and die from this disease to be left with heart and lung damage, kelly says she weeps for the nation. joanne out of minnesota, republican line, good morning. caller: i have some opinions on who should get it first. i think the health care workers should get it. possibly their family should get it. those who arehat in nursing homes or who have pre-existing conditions, them, i think. excuse me, here. i lost my thought.

then i think that teachers and essential workers. if the teachers are vaccinated we can keep the schools open. not a lot of the children do get it. it's the teachers that are elderly. then i think anybody, like i said, with pre-existing conditions. even if they are younger. they should also get it. for the fellow that said not many are dying, it's a quarter of a million people who have died. for the fellow that talked about cities, i live in a rural area. has grown dramatically in the last couple of weeks. one other thing i would like to say is that i saw a headline this morning that england is going to start giving their shots on december 1. yet our fda is not even going to untilt the possibility

december 10. lives are being lost. is there any way they can look at it sooner? december 13 appears to be the target date where we are likely to see vaccines distributed if they are approved . but even then, it will be 40 million doses said to be available by the end of december. when it comes to just the health riskworkers in high exposure jobs, that number according to npr is estimated at 21 million people around the country. you said that your first priority would not only be health care workers, but their family members as well. now we are talking about a lot more than just the 40 million doses that would be available. remember, these doses usually take two doses to be effective.

i guess my question is, is that something that americans should vaccinating as of young health care worker spouse as opposed to using it for someone who is in their 60's, 70's, 80's with underlying medical conditions? caller: yeah, that's a really good point. only if their families, or if they have members who are really high risk. i do feel that after health care workers that the elderly, or those that are really sick in the hospital with different it beforeuld receive a healthy family member. that's a real good point and something to think about. we don't have enough doses. we need to give it to the people

who are most likely to die from it. host: thank you for the call. trying to go into the numbers a bit more in terms of the size of the population in the united states, this is from npr, where we get the 21 million number for health care workers on the front lines. they noted a second group, 87 million member group, workers in other essential areas, persons who conduct operations through critical infrastructure like food, agriculture, transportation, education, and law enforcement. "the third group, putting them at higher risk of serious diseases, adults with one or more high-risk medical conditions, such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease. of that group considered for priority vaccine as asians would be adults 65 and older. that's some 63 million people with no other health conditions

but they are at risk for serious disease based on their age, including adults living at home and adults in long-term care facilities. to try to put numbers into this perspective, again remember, the latest numbers, just 40 million doses available by the end of december. more available by the month after that, but there is going to be a priority and we want to know what you think it should be . bobby, mississippi, democratic line, good morning. good morning, john. i would like to prioritize who should be given the vaccine first. first of all, i would like to say that it should be, i hate to say on a voluntary basis, but you are going to have people that aren't going to want to take it. the military should be first. the military has to protect our country. if we don't have anyone to protect our country, we are going to have a problem with

anybody else being able to get the vaccine. so, with the military being first, and then the health care workers. they have to be well enough to be able to take care of us. as far as that, you would look at your group as far as high-risk risk people with come or bit it he's. and of course definitely in nursing homes. that's where it was most rampant in the beginning and it got so out of hand. people in large groups like your nursing homes, your public workers that are, you know, in grocery stores, of course. and then public works. the country, the city, the state has to be able to run its infrastructure and without those people, we can't do anything either. so, in my mind that's, we should protect the country first and

make sure that they are strong enough to do that job. that was bobby in mississippi. amanda, kansas, good morning. i think everybody is looking at this all wrong. i think everybody is looking at this all wrong. historically with pandemics that one should isolate where it is at. if something starts in the city, you close everything, no traffic coming in, no traffic coming out and you handle the people in the city. i think we need to find one place in the country, say maybe the state of washington and we started in washington and we get everybody there. we don't allow flights in or out. we keep the borders to that state run.

we go from state to state until we get everybody done. but you have to keep the borders. you don't let trap -- you don't let people travel in and out until we get it under control. then he will be able to tell if it is working and you are getting it under control. you are not willy-nilly and not really knowing whether or not the vaccine is working or not. so, that's my thought. if they go the other route, trying to pick out health care workers and this kind of thing, i agree with joe, prison workers , people in prisons should be the absolute last people to get it. host: that's amanda in kansas this morning. on twitter we have "it should be teachers, first. the school year has been impacted enough and time in the field is a limited resources.

hospital workers, it's a tough call but they should be second." that's with the twitter writer writes. ppe and antiseptics have helped them so far." to have you keep calling in on phone lines, split up as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 we want to update you on the latest developments when it comes to the trump challenge of election 2020. it's the lead story today in "the washington times." they are calling it an uphill .attle that's becoming steeper "a judge in pennsylvania dismissed with prejudice the major challenge, causing his closest allies to intensify their calls to get up the

litigation. "frankly, the litigation has ."en an embarrassment lisa murkowski, now, republican out of alaska, she released a statement yesterday -- as states wrap up the election and certify the results it's incumbent upon all of us to make sure that we respect the integrity of the process and uphold faith in the system as each state works to ensure a free and fair election process. the courts have found his claims to be without merit. the pressure campaign on state legislators to influence the outcome is not only unprecedented, but inconsistent with the democratic assess. it's time to begin a full ."formal transition process that from a republican member of the senate.

within all of that, a shakeup of the trump legal team leading the fight on the president's behalf. his legal team thrown into tumbled on sunday. they write that when two trump attorneys released a statement abruptly distancing themselves from a third attorney, sidney powell. they had appeared at a news conference on thursday when they arranged baseless accusations about the integrity of the election. powell in particular has become vocal in lobbing some of the most convoluted claims, alleging a conspiracy involving communist money from hugo chavez, the late venezuelan president, and an algorithm that favors democrats that is from "the washington post," "the

washington times." trying to keep you on top of the news as we continue this conversation about vaccine prioritization, how would you do it? 10 minutes left in the segment to get your thoughts. daniel, st. petersburg, florida, republican, what do you think? i'm tired of us, we are playing games. most of us calling into this program are two intelligent to be this stupid. first, find out, can we be able to respect each other? if we are going to do that, the first thing we have to do is be able to help each other. if we are going to help each other, we have to look at this vaccine no differently than bringing love and warmth to each other's lives. the first people that need it are those in the most desperation. the rest of us who are strong and healthy can hold on for a

little while. let them get back on their feet and that should help as well. but when we have leadership like in the right now presidency, i'm really disappointed. i'm a republican and i want my president to stand up and say we can do this and here's how it's going to go. he has abandoned us. host: in your way of doing this compassionately, where do we put teachers? we had one viewer right in that teachers should be the top priorities because the children have been impacted so much during this closed and virtual school process. smart to bere too stupid. the bottom line is that some of us in our own life, we need help. if it is educators, please, educators raise your hands.

which one of you want to be vaccinated? some don't want to be vaccinated. are you going to tell them that you have to lose your license? you won't be able to practice education if you don't take it? there are a lot of things going on here. instead of forcing people -- when i was in the military, we lined up and they gave us a shot. we didn't know what the heck it was. and we allt a time got it. why? we wanted to protect and defend the nation. when we get these workers to lineup? i'm a republican, but this president put in doubt, his own child is laying there in an emergency room. he's not in the hospital, he's in an emergency room. steve,ll right, this is georgia, independent line, good morning. whoer: i think the people

should take it first are the ones who need it the most, the most vulnerable, the most exposed. anybody who doesn't want to take shoulde the mask, they be forced to take it. if the democrats think it was done under trump, they don't want to take it, great, that's their decision. it's still america and still a free country. thank you. host: good morning. morning, how are you, sir? host: doing well. i would be opposed to the military being in the first round of taking virus cure 1.0. your question is how would i do it or how should it be done? we have to look at who does protect our country internally. there are first responders who may want to take it. it should be strictly on a

volunteer basis. people who work in health care, people who engage with the as teachers, policemen, firemen, those sort at higher risk of catching it. we want to prevent people from catching it. or if they do have it, not having it again. we can't do anything about the 200,000 plus to have already perished and those who have it now that are suffering. again, this is just another failure or an example of the failure of the current administration's. to see how weting are so divided against each other when it comes to masks. earlier proposed the idea of not just frontline health workers, but family members of frontline health workers moving up the line here for vaccinations.

this is from alexander dumas's frontline, "as a worker i think we should get it first. i had a patient talking to me with his last that his mask off. he knows we have families and we are terrified of spreading it to them. we frontline workers are not acknowledged often. what do you think of that, protecting not just the health-care workers but the families they are going to home to every night? for the record, they are acknowledged. people do thank them. i think it is important to protect the families of those who are at risk, who are engaging with the public to sort of stave off the scourge that has flown through the united states in the world. i think they are very important. i also think, this is my

personal belief, that those who went to super spread of events and who aren't mask deniers or science deniers, if they are first in line to say hey i want thevaccination, those are same people who purchased all the toilet paper for resale when this thing first hit who didn't believe in it, called it a hoax but purchased all the supplies everyone else needs. the country is showing -- humans are showing their true colors and their greed and their willful ignorance on science. but i believe first responders and their families should be allowed to be first in line or to be a priority and hopefully we will see this vanish. but right now we don't know the long-term effects of any vaccine . i would hate to subject my family or my children to something that has not been thoroughly tested where we don't know the long-term effects.

again, this is vaccination 1.0. going on to nolan in new york city, democratic line, go ahead. i would say that my priority list would be health onesworkers, specifically such as those doing emergency response. what i mean by that is, you the, icu nurses, doctors, file clerks and the janitors in .he icu or the emergency room second, i would say primary doctors. those are the ones who are going to be giving the vaccine to people. you are going to have to get those people. and then afterwards i would look at the cdc list of people that are affected. they have a list of comorbidities. anyone that has multiples on prioritized.uld be

and then afterwards i would look at certain government and economic considerations government like, but only militt that is being deployed but will be deployed in an emergency or next in line. like let's say if there is an aircraft carrier, i think they are fine, they're just not going to any port. it is the people who will be deployed afterwards i think should be vaccinated. in case of an emergency, and then maybe teachers, etc. and i would lastly say there should be special consideration just like the lady said, of native americans, also people of color, etc.. thanks for calling. this is celia, who has been waiting in all test, oklahoma, a republican. go ahead.

caller: i don't agree with all this vaccine and stuff because where is the proof that the vaccine works, and do they have people that have been tested with the vaccine already or what? around.celia, stick next we will be joined by business insider health care reporter andrew dunn, talking about a lot of the questions that you just asked. later on this program, we will be joined by george mason university mercatus center senior research strategist talking abouts, social security reform and how covid has impacted social security. we'll be right back. announcer: today, live on c-span2, a live conversation with former president barack obama and his newly published memoir, "a promised land,"

reflecting on his life and political career. he is interviewed by michelle norris and elizabeth alexander. former president barack obama come alive today at 11:30 a.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. tonight on the communicators, we take a look at issues, faced -- with patricia joe boyers. >> our members have done such a great job of serving their communities and meeting the needs and keeping americans connected with so many of our members stepping up to adopt the fcc pledge to keep americans connected, but by the same token we have also recognized that there are still continuing needs -- needs to serve students, needs to work with schools, hospitals andwith

medical facilities so we can improve telehealth, ways we can increase broadband network speed, ways we can serve unserved areas. catersatch the committee tonight on c-span 2 -- the c-span2ators tonight on . announcer: joe biden as president elect. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. washington journal continues. is the healthunn care reporter focusing on the pharmaceutical biotech industry for business insider and joins us via zoom for a deep dive into the topic of coronavirus vaccine. it has been hard to keep up with the news of the past two weeks.

take us through what you expect in the coming days and weeks. what we should be watching for this week. guest: thanks for having me, john. that makes two of us as far as trying to keep on top of everything. as far as the current state of play, these past three weeks we have seen three crucial positive readouts of data from leading programs. the first came from pfizer, the second came from moderna, and the third one this morning just came from astrazeneca and the team at oxford. these are three leading vaccine front runners, all three in late stage studies appear to be effective, the first to 95% effective in preventing covid-19. thatnity is expected to do late november, early december. that will set up an fda decision, all eyes turning to the agency to see how quickly

they can approve it and for what subgroups of the population. vaccineing on in the phase, but there is a lot going on and much-needed positive news when you think about the surge that we have seen in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. the fda approval, how quickly could they approve it, and what could keep them from being approved, and how is the fda ensuring confidence in the public in the safety of these vaccines? guest: i talked to peter marks, who is in charge of this process. he outlined a process and said it would be measured in multiple beats. we are seeing that play out. it is a crucial group of independent experts that is going to meet on december 10 to discuss pfizer's vaccine. that vaccine is already filed. pfizer has submitted their emergency use authorization last friday.

-- it will take the agency until december 10 together these experts, whether to recommend these authorizations were not. it will take a week or two more, my own guest, on -- my own guess . by mid-to-late december we could see one way or the other authorizations from the fbi. i at least on the effectiveness front, modernity and pfizer show 95% effectiveness. they wanted at least 50% effectiveness. it might make the gap part simpler. do we see good trends in the data as far as does it reduce the changes you get taken to the hospital, in an ic unit -- an icu unit, or that you die from

the virus. was very upfront as far as saying what we know and what we don't know, and what we don't know about the vaccine is still the durability of protection, how long-lasting immunity would be, and the long-term safety profile host: -- long-term safety profile. ast: i know this is taking lot faster. we'll take 17 days from the committee to meet? it seems like a long time from right now. guest: that is what i went back and forth with dr. marks on. the fda is really intent on ensuring public trust in this process. that is probably the top priority. they don't want it to appear to anyone on the outside that they are rushing to a vaccine without gathering the independent group of experts to look at the data and to vet it themselves. they want to go through it with

eight transparent way. the upshot is that it takes time, dr. marks calculates they are moving as quickly as they can while going through all the steps of the process. they need to prepare briefing documents for the committee members that go through all this data. these are massive studies of tens of thousands of people. there have been a lot of data points to sift through, and the agency's primary responsibility is to make sure they are not missing anything in the data set, and that takes time. host: give viewers a number to call in with questions that you might have on this process, develop a phone lines. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 it health care reporter from business insider, andrew dunn.

it is businessinsider.com where you can see his stores. one question for the last segment on the story that the caller wanted me to ask you when you came on was, how these , concernsre developed that they were made from stem cell lines and therefore there might be religious considerations that some folks might have about whether to inject it. guest: it is not something that has been too pertinent in my covers or something i have seen from a lot of people i have talked to. -- that came up a lot with the regeneron antibody drug that donald trump took. authorizationd over the weekend. that digs back -- that dates back to the 1970's. it is many iterations away from that in the scientific process. i have not seen that concern being raised, but it is

something i'm watching out for. cash on afternoon at astrazeneca news this morning, effective, 95% in the other vaccines. take us to the positive of thees or drawbacks various vaccines and what astrazeneca provides. guest: you start with pfizer from two we should go and that was highly effective. one of the biggest downsides, the biggest limitations of that beduct is that it needs to stored at extremely cold temperatures, -70 degrees celsius, which when you think of the infrastructure needed to support that, the u.s. health care system, the world health care systems are not set up to accommodate that. product also shows a

high degree of effectiveness. you can store that in a refrigerator for about 30 days. that gives the health care system more leeway in figuring out how to distribute it across the country, get it to retail pharmacies get to people who might not have access to a metropolitan health care center. astrazeneca's news came out today and we are sifting through it. this data is from brazil and the u.k., so it is not necessarily -- it is closer to 20,000 people. it is 70% effective on average, which is a little bit below the first two results, the researchers found they were testing different variations, different doses of astrazeneca's vaccine, and they found if they gave a low dose first followed by a second dose, there was 90% effective. there are still a lot of questions around it. that is only based on 2741 people who received that type of

dosing combination. so we will want to see that number in a bigger group of people. that study is ongoing in the u.s.. inrazeneca, that can be cap a typical refrigerator storage for about six months while keeping stability. that is very encouraging to see. when you think about vaccinating the world and immunizing developing countries that might not have the same infrastructure , the stream the cold storage, it is an encouraging development to see for sure. host: plenty of callers already. claudia is up first out of an osha, wisconsin, on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i know on the previous segment people were talking about who should get it first. my concern is increasing the number of dosages. i know that pfizer and moderna, the two leading companies right now -- and modernity has better

capability for storing it at lower temperatures, but i am wondering why they cannot maybe solicit other manufacturers who already create injectables and have cold storage capabilities to try to increase those numbers , rather than having it be a social issue of who is first, but to really emphasize maybe doubling the amount of production host: that can happen. thanks -- of production that can happen. host: claudia, thanks for the question. andrew dunn? moderna, ando of pfizer come as far as when you get such a great readout, which is what they see with high effectiveness, the next question becomes how much do you make? i pulled these numbers today as we are looking at astrazeneca -- 2 million immunizations in december. moderna can immunize about 10

million people. it is a little under 40 million people in december. how can you ramp that up and expanded through 2021? that remains to be seen to some level. they have a trajectory that shows that growing into it eventually billions of doses. but it will take time to get there. one of the biggest hurdles is the supply chain. these are very complicated vaccines, especially pfizer and modernity. they are based on a new technology called messenger rna. there is a requirement to make the vaccine that is not typical. you need to get the , these fatty containers that you can carry the -- it is complex stuff and it requires hunting the globe to find these things in many different developers are making them. it will be interesting to see. if one appears to be highly effective as we get more data, what another pharmaceutical company volunteer its own

manufacturing power, or would a government step in and say we are going to try to impel you to do this? that is something i'm watching very closely. we haven't seen that yet. i think it is due to the complex city of the biology. these are not pills coming off the supply chain line, these are really complex, intricate medicines to develop. host: craig and washington, d.c., line for democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to -- i see a lot of people you're dying a lot and going to the hospital. i would like to know is it possible that people would get regeneron, the same medicine that the president got, and the steroids? are they available? quantities are very antibodyn regeneron's therapeutic. almost playing to that last that the manufacturing

process around an antibody drug is really complex. regeneron is made of two different antibodies used together to some level, which is a very complicated manufacturing process. so doses are going to be greatly limited on that, especially when you see the surging levels of cases in hospitalizations. the government has taken over that distribution question. those decisions will be made by hhs and we will be following along to see where those doses actually go. his access equitable? i think that is -- is access equitable? when we have limited quality seville -- quantities available, how do you make sure they go to the right places at the right time and in an equitable way? host: in our last segment we talked about the group that is advising the cdc here, the advisory committee on .mmunization practices, a cit who gets to be on that? who are those folks? nott: the a cip is

government scientists. they are not appointees by political figures. the is a group really of fda's advisory committee. it is a group of nerds. that are going to come together come about a dozen of them, and decide the best way to figure out a game plan for how to allocate limited doses. that meeting should happen sometime in december. i think the details are still being worked out as far as when they will have enough data to finalize a decision. should health care workers get it first, should the elderly with comorbidities, or should other groups we prioritized? that is an independent group of experts. the leader that is jose romero from the university of arkansas, who chairs that committee. when you think about allocation

and distribution of the vaccine. bet: who decides who gets to on that committee? is it self-selecting or is there an appointment process? guest: i'm not 100% sure on that, to be honest. i think the cdc plays a role in choosing those rules, but i'm not 100% sure. in crawford, is maryland. independent. your next. covid-19,u know this scientists are still developing and learning about this and we have these vaccinations. is going to be a benchmark for things to get back to normal if people take this. it seems like without understanding the stability about this, is this really going to be a cure or is this just going to be similar to a flu shot where it mitigates it a little bit, minimizes the effect, and we know that fact it, other than the

has a higher infection rate, it is similar to the flu -- without a mandatory vaccination, how is it going to get ahead of it? we cannot mandate flu shots. i don't expect that america will be able to mandate these. i would just like your thoughts on that. this is not the cure-all, the end-all be-all. andrew dunn. guest: that's a good point. i have talked to a lot of developers and experts who agree with that overall sentiment, that the vaccine in and of itself is not a silver bullet out of the pandemic. in the interim, mask wearing and social distancing are going to be critically important to the topharmaceutical innovations limit transmission of the virus. you brought up some great points as far as unanswered questions about the vaccine. this is something the fda will have to be very upfront about in the early months, that we don't

know the durability of protection. modernity,pfizer and is promising as it is, seeing 95% protection from the covid-19 disease. that is just a couple weeks after getting the two-those regimen. we still don't know what happens in among, two months, six months, a year, if people need booster shots. a lot can happen in that time. we see it with the flu where every year there are different mutations, different strains to be vaccinated against. that means it is a real challenging virus to be immunized against. will we see that with covid? we have not seen troubling mutations so far. that is something that will definitely be top of mind in 20 want to see if a mutation can get around this vaccine and lower the effectiveness. that would be troubling. i would also say another point to bring up, these studies might

be run in the future, but these initial trials were not designed to test to see if they can prevent transmission. we were looking more for preventing severe disease or moderate disease, symptomatic covid-19. but there is still a chance you could get the vaccine and it could be highly effective. you still don't want to throw away your masking and social distancing because there could be a chance you could be an asymptomatic carrier and transmitted unknowingly to people. if those other people have not gotten the vaccine, it could lead to severe outcomes for them. it would take how -- complex public health messaging to make sure the messaging is straight, clear and levels with the american people. host: on that messaging, as well as the distribution here and the approval, how much is that being impacted by a presidential transition? guest: we will find out, i guess, as far as it is going to

be interesting to see how prepared, how seamless a transition that can be from one administration to the next in january. a couple things to watch for on that is what happens with operation warp speed. that is a big question in my mind. this is the coronavirus vaccine initiative that has been very ambitious, shepherding in cold billion dollars to administrators, putting the foot on the gas pedal as far as developing these vaccines. let's do the trial simultaneously instead of in a sequential order, and let's ramp up manufacturing before we know it works so that we have doses if it does prove successful. what does the biden administration want to do with operation warp speed? do they want to change leadership? those are unanswered questions that will be very important to follow in the next few months. and seeing if there are any hit ups -- any hiccups between the administrations will be something to watch for. -- jeff from just

plainfield, illinois. since most of the companies making the vaccine are developed countries like the united states, how do other countries that are underdeveloped -- are they going to be last in line to receive it , like bangladesh were places like that? what is the priority of countries getting the vaccine? guest: that is a great question because it is -- i think that is one of the more troubling things that i think about long-term. the way i think about it is the u.s. is probably months away from having a widely available the --, and you can see anthony fauci, u.s. government scientist leaders, that this is anywhere from early spring to late summer of next year in the u.s. global distribution is another ballgame, reaching 7.5 billion

people across the world. like you said, countries like ethiopia, developing nations that might not have the infrastructure or purchasing power of the u.s. to spend $12 billion on vaccine programs. one initiative to watch closely as the world health organization , kovacs alliance. this is a group of most of the countries around the world where the u.s. is not a part of this, but most of the countries around the world agreeing to share some level of resources and basically try to not leave developing mitigations behind in the rush to get a vaccine, to make sure that some of the units go to developing nations. but i think you are right, as far as when you think about each country fending for itself and trying to do its own population, it is going to be challenging for developing nations to find a way to get their hands on the vaccine and get their hands on the best one because there are about 200 different want --

different ones and development. we have only seen the ones from pfizer, journey, astrazeneca -- moderna, and astrazeneca. what happens with the rest? that is a huge challenge that the world health organization will start to address but is probably use away from being available on the global level. bridgeport, connecticut. howard, a democrat. i was just curious, are there any respected scientists, personnel, organizations that have a contrary opinion as to the efficacy or the safety of the vaccines? absolutely. one i have talked to over the last few months is an infectious disease expert at harvard who harvard inenter at the 1980's, the 1990's, a longtime biotech exec who has been in this industry for a

while. he expressed to me hesitancy around himself, how he things about the decision. he wants to see long-term safety, long-term durability. he worries about something like a mutation or that waning immunity over time that could leave people susceptible. to reiterate, these are definitely theoretical concerns. we don't have data that shows protectionity of waning, but that is how he is thinking of it. though he sees it, especially that pfizer and moderna, there orno federally approved mra therapeutic vaccines out there. so what do these do in the long term? at least where he comes down on or twois waiting a year to see that long-term data for political trials to know for sure it is safe before getting

it himself. host: thursday the white house coronavirus task force held their first meeting in months. one of the issues that came up with this issue, and dr. fauci addressed some of the concerned americans might have about getting the vaccine. this is what he had to say. dr. fauci: the only way you can get an effective program is when people take the vaccine. we are going to be talking to you about that. i hear a lot now when we made these announcements this past monday, and then two mondays ago come about some reticence of people -- did you rush this? with this too fast? is it really safe and is it really efficacious? the process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity. it was a reflection of the extraordinary scientific advances in these types of vaccines which allowed us to do things in months that actually took years before.

so i really want to settle that concern that people have about that. what about the decision of the data? who looked at the data? was that some force that was maybe trying to put something over on you? no, it was actually an independent body of people who have no allegiance to anyone -- not to the administration, not to me, not to the companies -- that looked at the data and deemed it to be sound. now that data will be examined very carefully by the fda, together with an advisory are going to look at that before the fda makes the decision about putting this forth for an emergency use authorization, or ultimately for license. so we need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed and in an inappropriate way. this is really solid. host: andrew dunn, strong words from anthony fauci thursday.

guest: i think those strong words reflect what we have seen in the more troubled public polling as far as rising levels, a lot people saying they would not be the first in line to take it. a lot people saying that they don't ever plan to get in line to take a covid vaccine. we will see where the never shape up in the face of data. a theoretical vaccine could be hard to get your hands around, seeing actual data. i think anthony fauci is also making a statement as far as to the public of watch the process, see how this plays out over the next few weeks. the independent board of scientist that first released the data, this will be followed by an fda review that has a group of independent experts vetting it on december 10, for pfizer's at least. those readings are long, they are dirty, they get in the weeds. they are going to talk about what doesn't work as well as what does work.

then they are going to make a decision about this. even beyond that, you have the cdc committee that will meet another independent board of experts to check the vaccine again and figure out what the data supports as far as who should get it, when they should get it, what the priority should be. this does reflect a troubling level -- if at the end of the day we do have a safe and effective vaccine, which remains to be seen because we have not seen the actual peer reviews and data from the studies in the medical journal, but people have to line up to take it and feel confident in the process that it was not too politicized, that it wasn't rushed. any of those concerns that can be alleviated to get it widely distributed. left just about 15 mins with andrew dunn of "business insider taking your questions about the coronavirus vaccines, what we expect this week, what we expect in the weeks to come.

phone line if you want to join the conversation, 202-748-8000, ,epublicans, 202-748-8001 independents 202-748-8002. you can get in touch with andrew. don is in sacramento. a republican. thanks for waiting. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i just have a question. when embryonic stem cells came out and they were immediately beashed by the powers that in the medical profession because it would have put a lot of doctors and labs out of work -- and i remember back in college when a couple professors spoke to the fact that history teaches us what might happen. a long time ago, scientists that

said that the world was round, galileo -- they were horrifically persecuted. i am not in favor of abortion for embryonic stem cells, but if an embryonic stem cell is just simply something that is discharged from healthy females every month -- if i am correct on that logic, why the hell are we still suppressing it in lieu of the current crisis? host: back to the question of stem cell research. guest: it has not been a focus of my reporting, and i don't think i have seen direct criticism yet from any religious groups about that research process or some of the underlying foundation facts that led to these vaccines. but it is something i'm watching as far as if there are religious objections, and if that could lead to a substantial proportion of the country deciding not to

get a vaccine for religious purposes. that would be something very interesting to watch going forward. tampa,ives is in florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm in the medical field. just discussing with a few of the physicians last week, in regards to the flu vaccine. the one injection once a season, once a year, every flu season, but then it takes up to three to four weeks for it to be effective in your system. this vaccine is looking at two injections, first day and then 28 days later. but how effective is it in your system after the second dose? are we waiting another 30 days for it to be effective? window,him say about a it is possibly good for two weeks, we don't know. so further investigating that. has he heard anything about how

soon it is effective after the second dose? question,t is a great and that is something i think through the fda process when we actually see some of the underlying data, we will get hints on that. with both of these studies that -- start with pfizer, the you get the first dose, you wait 21 days to get the second dose. then there are seven more days before you start counting cases. if you got sick with covid have to get in the first dose, you are not counted as part of the study. if you got sick with covid after getting the second dose, even five days after that -- if you are not at the second day market, pfizer did not count you in that primary measure. moderna's is very similar. that is a two-day vaccine given over 20 days. they waitedstudy, two weeks to start counting responses. that is when your immune system promotes vaccines.

you need a couple weeks there, a little bit of time after you get your doses, after you get immunized come to see that immune response start to spike up and you get the peak of protection. i think you are right on as far evidencewe see any that suggests after you get the first dose you are protected to a partial degree, or do you need to get both doses, 10, 14, something like that, some number of days to get that full degree of protection that we are seeing when we talk about 95% effectiveness? mentioned your beat is the pharmaceutical and biotech industry. here is your question right up that alley -- jim writes from massachusetts -- "are the vaccines at their least possible cost now, or is big pharma making a profit at human cost? also, how is patent protection affecting vaccine supply?" guest: that is a great question.

no,nswer director, overall, they are at the least possible cost if you are talking about the marginal cost of making a unit off the supply chain. moderna and pfizer have both stated that they are going for a level of profit -- these are for-profit corporations, part of the pharmaceutical industry that knows how to make money. they are running this as a for-profit business. if an tactic with companies like astrazeneca, which is working and johnson johnson, which is another large pharmaceutical company in late stage developing with another faxing developing. -- another vaccine development. johnson & johnson and astrazeneca, they both made not-for-profit pledges around the pandemic. they are going to sell their vaccine for profit. what this means for cost per doses, it varies, but i can tell you operation warp speed, the u.s. government has bought the

supplies with a whole host of these companies, and arranges from about $40 for a vaccination course for moderna, $20, two shots east, $40 per person. for astrazeneca, it was about four dollars per dose, i forget which one. but it shows the relative range there. there is a level of profit being made by some of these cup a's. the second point on patents, that remains to be seen at some level as far as the modernity being the company that i'm aware of. we are not going to force our patent during the pandemic period. as far back as the history when you look at the hiv-age drugs, with some of the controversy around enforcing your patent, not enforcing your patent, letting developing nations get access to the medicines that they definitely need, at least in moderna's case, they said we are not going to enforce our patent.

what does that mean? these are very complex, biologic injectables. it is a very intricate manufacturing process to deliver these, and it is not making a small pill that might be a lot easier and more direct. so, you know, with a developing nation, does their drugmaker have the know-how and the technical capabilities to emulate this process and use that intellectual property to start delivering more doses? that remains to be seen. we will see. host: durham, north carolina. this is gabriel. democrat. caller: good morning. on that same point that you just brought up, andrew, it is actually exclusivity versus patent because exclusivity has a different range of coverage for the pharmaceutical industry come as you probably know. secondly, and there are more enforcement measures. then there are things like henry

waxman at play, the henry waxman act. let me go through a different topic here on the covid vaccine distribution. are -- note, if there right now it seems like once the vaccine becomes available online, pretty clear guidance has been put out within 24 hours that there will be a massive disbursement capacity throughout the state. these are the 64 jurisdictions under the public health umbrella. let me ask you this. a little bit on the longer side of this but also the medical doctor side of this -- if you cannot -- as you pointed here, you can have all the data come all the efficacy singles -- signals, all the research and community collaboration. but at the end of the day, if the public does not trust the it,ine, they will not take especially in minor your groups to have a history of being

impact and disenfranchised. how can those individuals be targeted and doing it in a way that gets them to buy in? i'm specifically talking about something that i hope you may write on in the future, and i would love to read it -- but about state defense forces being activated like we saw during the 1980 -- the 1918 spanish flu, it 9/11, inw during post new york, activated. but there are volunteers that can be trained in short iteration, but more importantly they are from the community. host: i want to give andrew a chance to jump in. before you go, are you in the health care field, or the pharmaceutical development field? you seem like somebody who seems to know the topic pretty well. what do you do? caller: i am actually a loyal supporter, a fourth-year medical student at duke and a second year law student at duke

as well. is it going at duke? are you doing this all virtually? caller: let me just be real with you. i think we have done the best job in the country come and i'm not bragging on duke's model, but are infection rates have been so low because we have followed the directions. in the time that the preliminary data has come out. we have leading experts, former fda commissioner's and so on. i am interested in north carolina getting it right and tapping into the resources of the public, in particular the state defense forces, which is in the constitution. host: let me give andrew dunn a chance to answer. thanks for the call. go ahead. reallythat is a fascinating question, gabriel. have to say i don't know too much about state effort as far as around a century ago, but that will be something to learn

more about. the broader question, how do you public, convince the c especially people who are following this process remotely, catching it once in a while, and they hear the names operation warp speed, pfizer has called their project project lightspeed. these are names that are just speed as the primary goal come and they wonder our corners being cut? were studies done properly? how do you convince people of that when you have this diagram of they have to trust the scientific process, the trump administration, pharmaceutical companies, which are not always the most trusted groups right now. and they have to trust a mix that the process worked and do they go off the rails? i would echo one thing said by of the fda.the head i asked him how worried he was about the public hesitancy poles and spec -- skepticism about the

vaccine. he brought a couple of main points. he said trust the process, watch the process play out. with the adcom, with the rollout. secondly, when people actually start getting the doses, not everyone will be comfortable being first in line. but for that group that is skeptical, if you can watch your neighbors, a clergy member, your own doctor get vaccinated, talk to them a couple months later and everything seems to be going fine, they feel ok, and they can vouch for it, especially someone far asst as far as -- as clergy members and personal doctors. if you see that playing out and people can hear that message, there is a hope that that can resonate with people, that the vaccine is safe and effective. i watched it play out. before that, i would see my need for, my clergyman were getting vaccinated, so maybe it's ok. as far as the effort, that is going to be interesting.

there are not a lot of specifics even yet as far as how much is operation warp speed going to go all the way with that last mile delivery of getting it to people? i have asked them multiple times over the last few months, what does this look like? mobile van units that can reach hard-to-reach places, urban errors or very rural areas with the vaccine that might have no access to a .op-tier medical center details have not been forthcoming as far as that distribution plan at how much of that will end up being the state responsibility. keep watching north carolina and let me know what you see going on. because i think there is a good chance we end up with a response where each state is doing its own strategy. clearly having pros and cons. host: nancy has been waiting in altoona, pennsylvania, a

democrat. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm calling because it is so difficult to get people to even wear the masks. i happened to hear the person in the phone call right before me that one of them is a month in between, which was my question. are both of them eat -- you need two doses, and how do we organize, how do we get the people back? we have to do this in a very systematic manner, because not followingt the guidelines of such simple things, and that is my question, that both of them, the ones that you have to get two doses, and how far apart -- i heard the one was one month, which i didn't know when i first called in. host: and now there is three with the astrazeneca announcement today. andrew? guest: all three of those are

two-dose regimens. doses, 20 eight days apart. astrazeneca is two doses, 28 days apart. you will need a follow-up visit, people reaching out their arms, coming back to the clinic at the right time to get a second one. that is a massive logistical challenge to pull off nationwide across the entire country. we will see how that plays out. as far as your point, getting the messaging right, getting people to show up and follow the deaths --d buy in, for all of science in 2020, it is how do you communicate with the public effectively? we are figuring out the virus in real time in january, february, march. figuring out how do people get -- infected?

sometimes the answers change. that is part of the scientific process. i covered a lot of -- itychloroquine, the started as a legitimate scientific theory, that it was probably efficacious in humans. sign, and theing trial showed it did not work. but there is a subgroup of people who believe this is a miracle cure, even though the data does not support that conclusion. so the challenge is finding people who are widely trusted. i think for a lot people this is someone like dr. anthony fauci, who has run the fah overseas unit for a decade -- for three decades. i know a proportion of this country does not trust dr. fauci, that they will not follow necessarily what he says just

because -- that is the challenge as far as finding people who are widely trusted, and maybe that means what dr. marks is saying is for as clergy members and local doctors, that maybe there is a look -- a level of celebrity involved. it remains to be seen. that will be one of the biggest challenges when we talk about the 2021 storyline -- how do you convince a country that is inherently skeptical of authority, inherently skeptical of the vaccine develop and process overall? how do you convince them to stick out their arms and get a vaccine that becomes available? host: andrew dunn, health care reporter with business insider. if you want to see his work, we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you very much. host: up next, a discussion on social security reform. we will be joined by george mason university mercatus center senior research center, charles blair house.

we will beat -- charles blahous. we will be right back. announcer: today live on c-span2, a live conversation with former president barack obama about his newly published memoir number reflecting on his life and political career. he is interviewed by michelle norris and mellon foundation president elizabeth alexander. former president barack obama, live today at 11:30 a.m. eastern on book tv come on c-span2. tonight on the communicators, we take a look at issues, independent, phone, broadband, and video providers face with matt polka, president of aca connects, and patricia joe boyers. >> our members have done such a great job of serving their communities and meeting the needs and keeping americans connected with so many of our

members stepping up to adopt the fcc's pledge to keep americans connected. but by the same token, we have also recognized that there are still continuing needs, needs to serve students, needs to work with schools, needs to work with -- a need to work with hospitals and medical facilities so we can improve telehealth. ways that we can increase the broadband network's speed, ways that we can serve unserved areas. announcer: watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. announcer: with joe biden as president elect, stay with c-span for live coverage of the transition of power. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. "washington journal" continues. host: chuck blah house is back

,o talk about social security chuck strategist at -- blah house come as we sit here eight-month into the pandemic, with the resultant economic downturn, he talks first about what covid impact has been on the health of the social security system in this country. nott: it probably will surprise your viewers to see that it is having a negative effect. the recession that has been , wages have covid gone down. all of that weakens the financial sense of full security. -- ate looking at a painful security programs even before covid, and this has made the situation more urgent than before. it?urgent is

what is the status of social security right now? guest: i would say it is extremely urgent. wen before the pandemic hit, were risking getting past the point of no return with the social security finances. the five readjustment that we have to make if we want to continue to have our social security program that has been financed and historically the weight has been, five of those changes have been difficult to overcome, and there is another aspect in which things are becoming urgent. the pandemic having an effect on worker wages, and of course social security benefits are tied to the growth of worker wages, so unless there is legislative action soon, people who were born in 1960 or so risk a sudden cut in their social security benefits. so lawmakers are going to have to legislate to deal with all of this. the good news is there are a lot of things we can do to make social security more fair, work

better, work better, more aggressive and more equitable, and many of the things will slow cost at the same time as strengthening system finances. so there are opportunities here, but they will be driven by -- always something that we hope you end up talking about when you join us. i want to start first on the short-term executive actions. president trump -- it was back in august -- she signed an executive order allowing american workers payroll tax contributions to be deferred until the end of the year. explain the why and what the impact will be. of course will be the motivation to try to give businesses, workers, employers, a helping hand in the context of the recession. obviously having to pay payroll tax is a significant cost the seo suited with employment, and was to provide

relief at a time where we are struggling to find ways to help people keep their jobs to stay employed. the motivation was very benign. having said that, from a social security perspective, it is problematic because the payroll tax is the lifeblood of social security. you cut into payroll tax selection even into a minor way, you are worsening the urgency of the social security shortfall. it is certainly not something i would have recommended for similar reasons. during president obama's administration. my own view as a social security trustee -- admittedly, i'm cannot cut social security taxes. --t: do we know how much do we know how much is deferred, and is there anyway it can be forgiven by congress in 2021? guest: i don't know how many businesses chose to collect this

. that any hope would be deferred payroll tax would not be forgiven because instead of just being a delay in the collection of payroll tax revenues and social security -- that social security desperately needs, it would be a permanent loss in revenue to the social security program and force more difficult changes with respect to benefits. while i am certainly in favor of giving relief to workers, to the unemployed, to people who are really trying to hang onto their jobs and their businesses, i just don't think the social security payroll tax is the right way to do it. the phone lines are split up this way. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. .ndependents, 202-748-8003 for social security recipients,

s 202-748-8002 ,. if you are on social security, 202-748-8003. talk to us what you know about d-day right now? what is the day that social security begins owing more money out then it collects? guest: i will answer that and preface it by saying that i used tocourse of people -- i used caution people not to spend so much time on the dates. social security started paying out more benefits payments then it was collecting since 2010. since that time, the benefits payments have been cap flowing because the trust fund is able to cash in on interest credits it has earned, cash in some of the balance in the trust fund to keep full benefits flowing. the date pre-pandemic that we

the trustcting, where fund levels were to be completed 2034 ordepleted were 2035. but i caution people not to depend on that date because by the time that rolls around, it if youtoo late to -- were to completely cut off all new benefit payments through 2024, -- 2034, 2035, there -- the window of opportunity, back in the process of closing now. you cannot really think of it as iny incurring -- occurring 2030. cleveland,rst from ohio, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: first of all, would they increase our social security benefits by the first of the year? and if trump refused to leave

office, how would he be removed? guest: the second part of that question i think i am going to dance away from. that is an important question that is on many people's minds, and goes far beyond the source of my expertise on social security. i don't anticipate a social security benefit increase being implemented before january of 2021. one of the things i found in my study, which might be counterintuitive, is that if you want to make social security more progressive and fair, the last thing we should do is a broader social security benefit expansion. the reason for that is that if you look at the various ways with social security, it is moving money around. the people who are losing the most money under the program tend to be younger workers, people just coming in to pay

payroll taxes. whereas those who have been the biggest gainers from increasing income inequality over the last several decades are people who are much more likely to be beneficiaries in the years ahead than they are to the payroll tax wage earning workers. so if we were to do an across-the-board benefit expense -- expansion, what would happen is we would be taking money away from people who are getting treated the worst, giving more money to people who are being treated the best, and we would also be doubling down on various regressive and counterproductive forms of income redistribution throughout the program. while i understand the political appeal of doing a benefit expansion for social security, from a fairness standpoint and from the program's effectiveness standpoint, it is the worst possible thing to do. late october from in morning consult. one of the reasons we wanted to talk to chuck blahouse about this, aggressive social security

reforms are needed. you just talked about one of them. what are some others? guest: let me give you an example. there is a benefit in social security that is paying people 50% of the benefits of the primary wage earner, and it is payable to the spouse. it is stay at home spouse. well intended benefit. it is intended to recognize the value of stay-at-home order. parenting, other household work. when iteflects a time was assumed the man would be working and the woman would be staying at home. it was originally structured as a so-called life insurance benefit, only paid on the basis of the man's earnings. it has been made gender-neutral innocence, but it is designed to

problematically reflect those early 20th century assumptions. it turns out this particular benefit is designed in a way that's very regressive. money away from people who have less and give it to people who have more. the benefit does not recognize today that parenting is done by two earner couples. so, there's more -- there's a different allocation for responsibility in today's america than there were in the early 20th century, but the way , ifbenefit is structured you are a working single mother learning minimum wage, paying payroll tax into the system for your entire career, the benefit you earned under social security is much less than the benefit someone else gets if they stay at home, mary the richest person they know -- marry the richest person they know and stay at

home. tot person will be entitled a larger benefit. this is a regressive transfer of income that divergence resources away from people who need them and they do not serve a clear social insurance policy -- purpose and they add to the cost. mark: until the bottom of the hour, we are with charles we do have that special someone for social recipients. a lot of folks on that line for you right now, chuck, including tommy in kentucky, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. glad you could take my call. i worked in the coal mines of kentucky about all my life, three years in the military. i have some sort of decent retirement. my question is, how can they pay

all this money for the recounts, haircut, and all and the rich get richer, but the only ones they touch of the poor people's benefit? i would like to reply to that. thank you. host: charles blahous. guest: it's worth discussing a background. social security is a very unique animal in the federal budget. it's designed to be confirmed benefit. , that people on earned byurity have paying for this all their lives.

you do not have the same political renegotiation of benefits that you haven't programs that are so-called welfare programs, programs designed to help poor people only. those types of programs that are financed through the general fund, they are constantly reassessing, what sort of benefits should people get, should there be means tests, how do we pay for this, etc. social security is largely spared that, primarily because social security recipients pay their own way. that only continues if we are willing to make the choices necessary to balance the program's payroll tax income and its outgoing benefit obligation. that, we haveng to abandon the way social security is financed historically and then it would be subject to the same recurring renegotiations of benefit levels and benefits would be a lot less

secure, in the manner that the caller referred to. host: what you think is the best way to do that? is it raising the eligibility age, increasing the payroll tax increasing the limit of what payroll compensation the barrel tax would apply to? --payroll tax would apply to? obviously, the best way to do it is a subjective value judgment. i have my own views. as an analyst, what i would tell people is we are at a point where it's very difficult to solve the problem without doing all of the above your it back in that there was a solution would pass on the revenue side and the cost containment side. are facing a shortfall that is much, much larger than what they faced in 1983. any adjustment on the tax i

would have to be much larger. my own personal view is we would have much better policy if we did more of a solution on the cost containment side than on the tax increase side, and that's primarily because if you want to make the system fairer according to when you were born and watching how different generations are treated comparably under the program and you want to have a solution where the people who have been the guest gainers from income inequality make a substantial contribution to solving the problem, is very difficult to do that with a solution that consists predominantly of taxes. that's a subjective view. analyst, i would say everything has to be on the table. it's very difficult to balance just with one lever. lynn on the line for

social security recipients. good morning. caller: good morning. i was one of the people who did not start drawing social security when i turned 66 and became eligible. a half yearsher to to increase my monthly pension amount, and at that time, i did not receive one of the months i had paid in advance for medicare. i was told that if i waited another year, i will receive eventually -- i would fill out some forms and receive that. it amounts to a hundred $35, but then i was told that because i took my benefit in the middle of the year rather than at the end of a calendar year i would also .ave my amount reduced

1555 andpposed to get $ i'm only getting $1395. they have reduced it down. is the question about where you go for these sorts of disputes with the social security administration? caller: well, i've just been calling the salt lake city local number and this is what i'm being told is that eventually social security will figure it all out and reimburse me. and i only started drawing seven months ago host: -- -- seven months ago? host: let me turn it over to charles blahous. i don't know how much casework you can do on the flight here. guest: i feel badly that i can't

speak specifically to your situation. all i can do is wish you well in thereg with your office in streaming things out. the one thing that i think is pertinent is you were very wise to delay your benefits. i wish more people would do that, especially people in good health, especially women. one of the greatest threats to poverty that we see among social security beneficiaries is when people take their benefits early, they get a lower monthly benefit than what they really need to sustain them and then they get past the point where they outlive their own personal savings and the have real problems. for beingyou foresighted enough to do for the question of your social security benefits. especially for women, especially for people in reasonably good health who expect to live a fair amount of time. i'm glad you did that.

i hope that everything works out for you. conrad, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been trying to get this point because of since moynahan was in office. to the original statement, the short statement 1935,e signed it in though we could not cover every situation, we did manage to pass legislation that would take poverty out of abject because of lack of jobs or poor health. social security was not meant for millionaires. -- so what should we do -- i did not need a cost-of-living raise every year. i would forgo my

cost-of-living raise for a year, i could deduct that from my income tax. even if i did not itemize, i have been trying to get this point across. -- i am farstart from being rich, but i'm comfortable. .hey should pass legislation host: let's take that up. the original, on intention of social security and how far. we have gotten from that guest: that's -- have gotten from that. guest: that's an excellent set of comments and i will start with the historical one.

the original program was much less ambitious. they went through a series of program expansions and most of our financial problems today in social security arise because of advances thatits occurred in the 1970's that we have not figured out how to pay for. one of the things we do not realize about social security is if we just had a program that was more consistent with fdr's original vision, we would not have a shortfall. the problem is we instituted moderate growth in the program we have not your don't how to pay for. specificr made suggestions about the treatment of higher income people under social security. i would not speak to or endorse any specific way of doing that. however i would certainly agree point that ifr's

we want to have a fair solution to the problem, we would do very well to look at places where the program is redistributing income away from people who need it more to people who need it less, and inevitably, that means the people who have had the highest income gains over the last couple decades in american can contribute to the solution if we moderate the growth of their benefits going forward. if you look at particular generations who are already and regressive transfers of income with the program, it's very difficult to make the program work well unless it's going forward in that manner. host: jack in northfield, ohio.

republican, good morning. i wonder if you could pass the windfall in limitation program -- as you know, it affects a lot of first ,esponders, old in public jobs teachers -- people in public jobs, teachers. we get severely reduced benefits, even though we had jobs prior to our public jobs. we have postretirement careers where we all paid into social security. line of worker u.n., jack? caller: i'm a writ -- host: what line of work are you in, jack? caller: i'm a retired police officer. guest: every now and then in

congress there is an attempt to the program and make it work better than it does. you are raising a subject that is near and dear to my heart a -- thehis relates to way that social security benefits are intended to work, it's intended to be progressive. but it's a very crude formula and it's a crude formula in the sense that it only operates on each individual's average earnings over their life. it cannot tell the difference between a low income person who works a lot of years and a high income person who works a few years. it looks of those people the same.

and because there are strange gaps in the information social security has access to, that is why the windfall origination thet, to adjust ways that current formula does not work very well. my own view is we need to redesign the benefit formula so it can be applied to every year earnings rather than the crude average for your lifetime. if we did that, we would not need there to be a windfall elimination provision. there would be no adjustment necessary. otherld also fix problems. it would fix terrible work disincentives, we would get rid of the regressive transfers of income to high income people that do not work very often. the reasons i endorse a benefit, i just a -- as just a benefit,

because it would fix problems like the one you're talking about. this is an and bar harbor, a social security recipient. good morning. caller: good morning. i worked hard to say for my pension fund and when i hit 70 and a half and had to take my mandatory minimum distribution, i found my taxes went up hugely, and somebody told me it was called the social security torpedo tax bomb. the taxes took most of my social security and i am told the reason for that is there is one line on the 1040 social security worksheet that has not been changed in decades and because it only hits a relatively small number of middle, lower middle

income people, no one has really advocated for that change. i could really use some clarification on that. thank you. guest: without knowing more specifics about your situation, i am not sure how accurately a can speak to it. you are referring to things that we probably should look at. there was a caller earlier who spoke about re-examining social security. another point is we also have system of ages in place for mandatory distribution from retirement savings. we probably need to take a look at that at the same time as to whether, as we are living longer, do we want to force take benefits

prematurely or sooner than they would have to do. the last thing is with respect to a line on your tax form. i don't know specifically what line that is. i can tell you income thresholds for the income taxation of social security benefits are not adjusted in the law each year. so it is one of the situations where, over time, more and more people to get affected by income taxation of their benefits. host: just about 10 minutes left with chuck blahous. at can see his work mercatus.org. ,his is michael out of morris illinois, social security recipient. good morning. two-parti, i've got a

short statement followed by a question. question.amble to the i was listening to national public radio and there was a researcher at northwestern university and he has been studying how the super wealthy influence our system, and he , $50that since 1975 trillion was transferred from the middle class to the upper class. talking about cut this, cut that -- they have used the social security tax to cover up every one of these tax breaks that have been given to the upper level of people, none of which has trickled down to people like us. so we have to stop talking about that. need to clawback that $50 trillion from the 1% yours and

.und social security only we should not be thinking of cutting anybody's benefits. i would like you to respond to that. host: chuck blahous, go ahead. of issuesre are a lot raised there. we could have a very different type of social security system if we want. we could change the way it is advanced. we could have a system funded by income taxes. we could have a system where there is no connection between what payroll tax people paid and what benefits they received. that would be a very different the onesystem from social security has always been and i will admit it would also be a system where benefits are a lot less secure because right now, at least social security benefits are protected i the idea that the people who are

receiving them -- by the idea that the people who are receiving them, in the aggregate, earned them. system,t aside that social security will be part of the overall budget negotiations, like other welfare programs are, and we will constantly be reassessing what people should get and should they get angst from it? -- should they get things from its? ? that is the main point i would make. with respect to social security, we have to look at programs treating everyone fairly and i think one of my pleased to listeners today is not necessarily assume that because bigger orurity is smaller that it's doing more for people on the modest and. remember, this is a zero-sum program at bass.

gains socialne they are losing as much money. the system does not necessarily become fairer. there's a lot of regressive income transferred that would work better if it had a slower rate of growth going forward. that's the conclusion of my study. what do we know about what a joe biden administration would like to see with changes in a social security program? guest: they certainly put forward proposals as part of their campaign platform that targeted revenue increases. combined they would make some progress on insolvency. i would hope that they do not

start out there honestly. again, social security as a very large financial shortfall and it will be very difficult to bridge it gap between the revenues is projected to collect and the benefits that are proposed. somewhere in the middle, people will have to figure out how much of this to meet by increasing tax collection. the last thing we should do is with a big cost increase, especially one that is justified based on fairness considerations. you do not want to create a dynamic where you want to force lawmakers to negotiate to get back to the starting point. with a cleanrt slates as to how to deal with the shortfall. we should not start by proposing anything that would move in the wrong direction. tom out of miamisburg,

ohio. social security recipient. good morning. caller: listen, i started paying into income tax when i was 14 years old in 1949. i paid into it until i finally retired in 2013. taken government had their hands off social security and left it in the trust it was , but no, our great politicians put it in the raised it fornd themselves for several years in a row. i wish i could have done that when i worked. i am a firm believer that if the government had kept their hands out of it instead of sticking it in the general fund, social security recipients would never

have had to, you know, think about ever losing it. i'mt: i would just say -- very glad for this question. this reminds me of one part of thatther caller's comments i had a memory failure and forgot to respond to. this is something you hear a lot. you hear people say, oh, social security would not have a shortfall if politicians had taken the money and spent it on other things. that's not the case. works, social security whenever there are payroll taxes put into the trust fund, those inroll taxes are reflected the treasury bonds that is issued to the trust fund. social security owns those treasury bonds, collects interest on those treasury bonds, page of the general fund, and when social security needs that money, they go to the rest of the federal government and

cash it in and pay benefits raised on that. social security has been doing that since 2010. myth is a long-standing out there that if politicians pay back all the money they stole, everything would be fine. that's not the case. social security is already collecting back the interest-competitive value of all the surplus payroll taxes. the reason social security has the shortfall is because the benefit formulas established in the 1970's far exceed what workers' payroll taxes can fund. it has nothing to do with politicians stealing money and not paying it back. back in the 1970's, there was a consultant panel that issued a report that said if you adopt the systemt formula, will not be able to sustain it over the long-term. somethingaying out

that was known in the 1970's when this was an act. we just have not -- was in acted. gripst have not come to with it. it's not politicians stealing money. one of the callers earlier brought up that he believes we have gotten far from the social security program and niche -- originally announced by f you are. my producer found a clip of fdr from 1933 and announcing the social security program. i just want to play it real quick and get your thoughts. here is fdr. [video clip] president roosevelt: the millions of today want and have a right to the same security that our forefathers sought in this nation, the assurance of and willingness to work, they would find a place for themselves in the social and economic systems of the times

because it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to build their own .ecurity single-handed government must now step in and help them lay the foundation stones, just as government in the past has helped lay the foundation of business and industry. we must face the fact that in a richuntry, we have man's security and a poor man's we have equal obligations to both, but national security is not -- host: fdr back in the 1930's. chuck blahous, some of the themes he talked about then and again today. reactions,wo main maybe this is something all of us know. the system that fdr bequeathed to us was much more financially stable than the one we have now.

the imbalances we have now in the current system -- host: i think we lost chuck blahous. we also have less than an minute left in the segment. i think we have them. chuck blahous, finish your thought. we lost you for a second there. guest: i'm sorry. the system fdr agrees to us was .uch more financially stable this is the result of legislation enacted in the 1970's. i'm always reminded the system that he left for us was much more financially stable. would make isnt i there is a reason the system has endured. it's because of this idea that it is a self financed, earned and if it's a rigged we could discard that. we can say we do not want to do the work of keeping it in

balance. we do not want to align benefits with payroll taxes. get rid of it. but we have to remember that's not so easily replaced and maintained. , wee want to have a system have to do the work of maintaining it. oft: if you like the work chuck blahous, he works at mercatus center. appreciate your time. guest: thanks for having me on. host: there's about half an hour left in the program. , note next we will talk about the latest news from the presidential transition -- coming up next we will talk about the latest news from the presidential transition. joe biden deciding on a point is. who do you think should be in joe biden's cabinet?

are on your screen. you can start calling it now and we will be right back. ♪ today, live on c-span2, a conversation with former president barack obama and his new memoir "promised land." he is interviewed by michele norris and melissa alexander. former president barack obama, live at 11:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. tonight on "the communicators," would take a look that independent phone, video, and broadband providers face with

our guests. our members have done such a great job of serving their communities and meeting their needs and keeping americans connected, with so many of our members stepping up to honor their pledge to keep americans connected, but there are still continuing needs. needs to serve students, needs to work with schools, a need to work with hospitals and medical canlities, ways that we increase the broadband network speeds, ways that we conserve unserved areas. >> with joe biden as president-elect, stay with c-span for coverage of the election recess and transition of power. c-span, your unfiltered view of

politics. "washington journal" continues. host: just about a half-hour left in our program. asking you this question. who would you like to see in a joe biden cabinet? slowed up this way. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. 2.dependents, 202-748-8001 news broke post," out. announce tony to nken.k and -- tony bli

also the "washington post" reporting that joe biden is announce linda thomas greenfield the ambassador to the u.n., one of the most high profile positions in government. some ran down -- some background secretary of state pick. inken was deputy national security adviser, deputy secretary of state, cofounded a political strategy firm along with michele flournoy, who served in the obama administration, and believed to in contention for being the defense secretary and a private administration, the first woman to serve in that role. as these picks start to come

out, asking you who you would like to see in a biden cabinet. richard, democrat, what do you think? caller: i'm a democrat of course, but i would like to see the governor that was in ohio, a republican -- host: john kasich. caller: right now, i forget his name, and he has governed a while -- host: is it john kasich? caller: yes, that's him. i would vote for him for president this minute and i'm a democrat. let me say one quick thing. that social security and medicare, and i see all of these old people, old republicans there, they love that socialism. i will get off. thank you. host: who would you like to see

in a biden cabinet? caller: if i had my dream scenario, i would like to see joe biden asked bernie sanders on those selections, because the problem that we keep having in america is people are trying to understand why things don't work for the people very well, which is one of the reasons why trump got elected rid of course, what's he got in than anye was worse democrat as far as stacking corporate, moneyed interest, billionaire class, war , trump was worse than any democrat at making our government work for business rather than people. biden is like trump lite. i think he will have excuses like, i had to pick these cabinet people to get through the senate, so it's very important the democrats get out in the senateia

or nothing will matter anyway because nothing will get past. that's my best suggestion. host: here is the background on nken from the new york today, on this choice that is expected be announced tomorrow. 58 years old. former secretary of state under president barack obama, begin his career in the clinton administration. extensive foreign-policy credentials, expected to help calm diplomats and global leaders after four years of the trump administration ricocheting strategy and nationalist swaggering. times" how "the new york puts it today. is that resume something that sounds good to you? caller: the experience is important because i think you have to have that just to be the to interact with foreign governments and things

like that. what policies has he surrounded himself with in the past? has he been pro-saudi because our oil companies love them? attacking anro-as intervening in yemen? what is his position on iran? biden will be a massive improvement to i am going to lie heut the pandemic trump, but needs to live up to the fact that he claims he is a reformed person when it comes to putting people, not corporations and profits first. security, all they have to do is take the cap away and all these people who have excessive income surveying into the social security system and

by the estimates from the experts, it would make it last 75 years and you could expand those benefits and give seniors an increase, which -- host: we will leave the social security discussion behind just because we have some ecology want to talk about this issue. one other issue i want to point nken's tony bli background, that famous picture you may know from the situation room during the raid on the osama bin laden compound, you will see on your screen -- tony picture,ctually in the peeking over the shoulder there he is background, and now the one expected to be the secretary of state in a joe biden administration. blinkennote that tony

has been in the c-span archives quite a bit. 26 videos, all available at c-span.org. want to take you back all the way to 1996 and his first appearance in the c-span video library, talking at a foreign policy event about speechwriting about the job of speechwriting. it was a job he held during the clinton administration. this from about 25 years ago. [video clip] thank you. we are violating the very first rule of speechwriting, which is if you write speeches, you are not to be seen and certainly not to be heard from, certainly not in europe voice. we are also -- in your own voice. we are violating another rule. if you write speeches, you should avoid at all costs delivering them yourself. the standard is impossibly high. you are expected to come up with

dazzling feats of sentence construction with on after upon, mot, so ther bon first thing i want to assure you of is there will be none of that night. challenge --ther one of the saving graces of this job is that after you have written a speech and after your boss has delivered it, people, greatee, that was a speech. it's to bad your boss ended like calvin coolidge without the charisma. and of course, if you give the speech yourself you have no one to blame but yourself if your audience comes up with a case of terminal ennui. and the last thing to do is

deliver a speech and have the person you usually write for be in attendance. the superiority you feel as the man or woman behind the words will quickly evaporate -- and that explains why the president could not be with us tonight. tony blinken back in 1996. of him the first video in our c-span video archives. expected to be announced tomorrow as president joe biden's secretary of state pick. diana, who would you put in that cabinet. labor, bernie sanders, tammy duckworth, veterans, elizabeth warren, treasury, barbara lee, hidud. , how confident are

you that any of those folks will be in a biden cabinet? i know that to you would like to see. caller: also, katie porter somewhere. got to have katie porter. i'm not certain. i'm not certain he has any commitment to putting bernie sanders anywhere, but i would definitely love to see it, particularly katie porter he -- porter, bernieie sanders, larry krasner philadelphia. host: alabama, good morning. .aller: yes i would like to see president-elect biden choose senator doug jones from alabama for attorney general. i think he would help us out. host: what do you think he lost reelection? caller: alabama is a very republican state.

the people in alabama have been brainwashed by fox news. they watch fox news all day, that's all they do, and they ,on't believe that democrats who gave them $1200, is good. they voted against that. i think we are kind of twisted here in alabama. host: that's from athens, alabama. for a republican perspective, fred jessup, maryland. 30 think is a realist the pic for a biden administration you would like to see? it's not panetta and all the same old ones they used from the obama administration. joe biden has a history, everything he has done policy wrong.backwards and

even secretary gates admitted that and he worked right under joe biden. this is a man who barely does thecampaigning and gets most votes in the history of the country. that's unbelievable. i am not going to take his , butdency as legit anyway he has issues as far as his cabinet picks. i mean, he's got to be a little a little bitral, republican, a little bit of democrats. trump did that, but when he did that, he was using deep state bureaucrats that undermined his presidency and attacked them every day for four years. joe biden will not be able to hide from these gaffes and mistakes on the teleprompter. huge blunders.ng the press cannot protect him forever. host: the question is, can buy get any had confirmed by the by the-- heads confirmed senate? of course, the race in georgia

will be key. a story today in "the washington times" about fundraising and the campaigning happening in the peach state, just a look at the fundraising numbers, down in georgia for the two democratic candidates. there's raffi l warnock and jon raphael warnock and jon ossoff. when hundred $90,000 to mr. warnock's campaign, big contributors are the employees companyf it, the parent to google, and the university of california system. mr. assad's 10 biggest contributors of campaign cash

are composed almost exclusively of west coast technology giants and top colleges. the two republicans hoping to keep their seats, "the washington times" looking into their fundraising. senator purdue, senator loeffler , it's a who's who of georgia big business. both are raking in contributions from employees of atlanta-based giants delta airlines and home depot. and companies and other parts of the state. that is in today's "washington tim out ofs is michigan, democrat. who would you like to see in a biden cabinet? caller: i would like to see malcolm nance somewhere in the secretary of defense department. i trust him and he seems to be very intelligent. host: why do you trust him? caller: because he speaks the

truth. host: this is michael out of philly. good morning. who would you like to see in a biden administration? caller: i would just like to see an actual leftist. i don't think i made any commitment to any real left policies during the debates or interviews and i think kamala refuted pretty vigorously that she was a leftist herself. that's my concern. i don't think bernie is going to happen by a longshot. host: is there someone that you think might make it that might be acceptable, michael? caller: i am not hopeful at all. for me, somebody who leans toward socialist policies, i think we are going to really see an actual return to the norm with asen is used to

full -- as few exceptions as he can get there. you did notssuming support joe biden in the primaries? caller: no, i absolutely did. he is just the beacon of the fight now that we got trump out. get: we are starting to news this week, expecting formal announcements tomorrow. we want to know who you think should be in a joe biden cabinet. democrat,00 if your 202-748-8001 if you are if you're, independent, 202-748-8002. good morning. caller: good morning to you. thank you for taking my call, as they always say when you take your call. it's not who i want to be placed on the cabinet, it's who i do

not want to lose as a senator. in joet want anyone biden's cabinet who is sitting innocent israel seat right now. they need to stay where they are. we are doing a battle to gain property in the senate. othering these people jobs i think it turns us into bigger losers that we are prepared to be. worried about senator harris's seat in the senate? yes, i am, absolutely. no, no, i'm not worried about that. she is vice president, they can't do anything about that -- senators who sit in very blue states you may be more comfortable with, or you just do not want to lose any democrats or have any sort of possible openings, i guess in a special election in the senate down the road? caller: we are on the same page. i do not want to lose anyone who

is working as a letter now -- as a senator now. warren -- i think she is incredible. i love elizabeth but i do not want to give her any other job. she's doing a fine job right where she is. she needs to stay there and we need to concentrate on getting our votes together in georgia and praying by a miracle that we can move mitch out of the way. note of course, we should president trump and his legal team still contesting the results of election 2020. ins is the story about it "the washington times." the battle became even steeper after a federal judge in pennsylvania dismissed with prejudice, their last legal challenge. has called on allies to

intensify their calls for him to give up litigation even as -- one of those allies made a very public call yesterday, former new jersey governor chris christie went on abc's "this week." this is what he had to say. [video clip] george: is it finally time for this to end? christie: yes. here is why. the president has had an opportunity to access the courts. if you got the evidence of fraud, presented. what has happened is, quite friendly, the president's legal team has been a national embarrassment. powell accused brian kemp crime on national television, but i'm willing to go on tv and lay out the evidence she supposedly has. this is outrageous conduct.

they will not do it inside the courtroom. they alleged fraud outside the courtroom, but when they go inside, they do not plead fraud. they do not argue fraud. this is what i'm concerned about. havee been as a order -- i been a supporter of the president. i voted for him twice. but elections have consequences and we cannot continue to act like something happened here that did not happen. you have an obligation to present the evidence. evidence has not been presented and you must conclude -- tucker carlsson even concluded the other night that if you are unwilling to present the evidence, it must be the evidence does not exist. i remain concerned. i think it's wrong. i think you have heard republican start to say this. i hope more say it on election night because the country has to matter most. as much as i am a strong republican and love my party, the country has to come first. host: chris christie on "this

week." he mentioned sydney powell. news about sydney powell late evening. ofre was a tumulty when two president trump's attorneys released a statement abruptly distancing the campaign from the third attorney, saying that sydney powell is practicing law on her own and she is not a member of the trump legal team. she's not a lawyer for the president and his personal capacity, days after giuliani, ellis, and powell appeared together at a news conference on thursday making a range of claims on the election. back to the question of who you would like to see in a joe biden cabinet. this is enough from pennsylvania, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a democrat, 87 years old. the social programs the

, our familyt in survived in the late 1930's under the epa. i would tell you who would be the best secretary of state. and rice. ambassador to the u.n., very, very bright. camp --e in mr. biden's however, i think he needs to say that state's interest. they're many people out here who are neither left nor right. the point is he has to stay in the middle. important. this is the survival of our democracy. who we pick in the cabinet is probably the most important mr. biden is making, maybe in our

history. host: do you know much about tony blinken. caller: i did. i know about him. he's been in the cabinet, he was there with obama and when clinton was there. i think we need someone who is a little detached from that room in washington. host: that gina in pennsylvania. ronald out of baltimore, new york, republican. who do you think, ronald? caller: i'm curious -- wouldn't it be wiser it joe biden would pick some conservative democrats for his cabinet rather than mostly socialists? he campaigned on the idea of .ringing the country together i'm hoping he does not have all left-wingers on his cabinet. who is someone that fits

that bill that you think has a realistic chance of being in the cabinet? caller: i think you need someone even someone like chris christie, someone who has experience in government instead of someone, some left-winger. host: who is somebody would be most concerned about being announced for a cap pick? -- cabinet pick? i don't think anyone does far along in government is going to try to overthrow the government. to be changes. not so radical it throws everything out of skew, you know? a, souths is rim need nita, southme -- ri carolina, independent. a politician i have

admired for a long time, formally in the senate. jim webb. i don't know exactly -- know you don't exactly what? what post. i'm thinking military, but i think he would be a good member for mr. biden and i would like for someone to reassure me that president trump and all his cohorts and allies are not going to find some way to steal this election? we have been disenfranchised so many times five m and i would biden is actually confirmed as president.

caller: i think chris coons is one of the most bipartisan senators. he has served on so many he has beenjustice, everywhere. ethics, appropriations, foreign relations, i have never seen the man be anything but dignified whenever he has been serving our therey especially when are newsworthy items. host: we will find out more about the cabinet. we are expecting an official announcement tomorrow. we will be here tomorrow morning from seven :00 a.m. eastern until 10:00 a.m., but until then. have a great monday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] ♪