>> nicholas fandos previews the week ahead in congress. mark zandi looks at the economic challenges facing the biden administration. and we take your calls. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning, everyone on this monday. happening this evening, the house of representatives will send over there article of impeachment against former president trump. the senate trial is set to begin the week of february 8. we will get your thoughts on the proceedings later. we will begin with the impact the pandemic has had on the mental health of young people. the new york times describes the rise in suicides due to kids not attending schools in las vegas

schools that have not opened up. this is how we will divide the lines. parents, dial in at (202) 748-8000. educators, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us with your first name, city, and state at (202) 748-8003. or go to twitter @cspanwj or facebook.com/c-span. inside the new york times reporting on this story, they note that some parents have lost students who have taken their lives due to schools not being open, but making that connection became taboo. someone, back in april 2020, sent out this video after the death of his son. [video clip] >> my son died from the

coronavirus, but not the way you think. the human condition is not to be socially isolated. i heard someone say it is like summer for these kids. it is not. anybody who says that is an idiot. you have parents who are stressed out because they have lost their jobs, kids who have no interaction with their friends other than through fortnite and facetime. kids who cannot run off their energy at pe class. there are social and emotional challenges beyond comprehension. we are only beginning to understand the effects that it will be incredibly hard to track. it will be incredibly hard to prove my thesis because the effect is too complicated, but my belief is that we are in a social and emotional bubble that is about to burst.

it has been coming for a while. hayden was an incredible kid. host:'s video after he buried his son. -- his video after he buried his son. we are getting your views on the impact on mental health the pandemic has had. parents, (202) 748-8000. educators, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. from the new york times reporting of the surge -- a reminder of the pandemic driven suffering has come in droves. since schools shut their doors in march, and early warning system that monitors student mental health episodes has sent alerts to district officials, raising alarms about suicidal thoughts, possible self harm.

by december, 18 students had taken their lives. the spate of students has driven the district to bring them back as quickly as possible. they go on to write, superintendents across the nation are weighing the benefit of in person education against the cost of public health. watching teachers and staff in some cases die, but also the toll classes are having on children nearly a year and. suicides are impulsive and difficult to ascribe to specific causes. we are getting your thoughts on what is the impact of covid-19 on mental health for young people in this country, whether they are going to school or not. we want to hear from you.

parents, (202) 748-8000. educators, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. now, brad huntstable went on to make a public service announcement after the death of his son, teaming up with experts. take a look. [video clip] >> isolation has created what i believe is an emotional tsunami that is sweeping this nation, and i am concerned. >> the next health crisis may be a wave of suicides. >> suicide rates are at their highest since world war ii. >> the government has only given about $500 million to this mental health problem. >> 41 days ago, my 12-year-old boy, took his life. >> the second leading cause of

death in the u.s. for 10 to 14-year-olds suicide. the second leading cause of death of 15 to 24-year-olds is suicide. 25 to 34-year-olds, suicide. host: public service announcement by a father who lost his son, he says due to the isolation of this pandemic. we want to know what is happening with students across the country. paul in houston, texas, good morning to you. what are your thoughts on this? caller: good morning. i my summer vacation. i was so bored stupid that i did indeed look forward to going back to school. school is more of a social outlet of some kind rather than a place of learning, but that is all i have to say. i was going to ask you if you had any figures on adults who

have started to commit suicide at a faster rate since this began. host: ok. paul, you think that is important because --what were you going to say? caller: i have fought mental illness all my life, so i know how hard it is to come up against this, and i was just wondering, have adults been committing suicide in higher numbers than the kids? i guess everybody is under this, i guess i'm trying to say. the say thing. -- same thing. host: understood. michael, a parent in cincinnati. are your kids in school or learning virtually? caller: migraine kids are learning virtually. -- my grand are learning virtually. i used to be a former educator.

host: we are listening. caller: yes, but now i am looking at the young man who took his life, and i really feel for that dad, but the fact is the virus is what we are fighting and we all want to get back to some normalcy in their lives, but we cannot do that until we get rid of the virus, so i would say, yes, schools need to be closed. my wife is still in educator and i do not want her -- still an educator and i do not want her going to work bring the virus home to me and my grandkids. we have to fight the virus first and that is my comment. host: ronald in lawton, oklahoma, what are your thoughts this morning? caller: yes. ok. i don't have any kids, but i do have godkids -- excuse me?

i cannot hear you. host: we are listening. ronald, you have godkids, and -- caller: the kids today are board. -- bored. a lot of kids do no good food to eat. excuse me? host: they don't eat breakfast. because they are not at school? caller: yeah. because they are not at school. i don't know. for me, it seems like the parents, they are not there, either. they are not there for the kids. the grandparents may be there for them, but -- host: ok. mark, waterville, maine. mark, it is your turn, mark.

what are you hearing about the impact of this pandemic on kids? caller: a lot of trouble i guess. host: all right. mark in maine. we went to hear what it has been like for you -- we want to hear what has been like for you. parents, (202) 748-8000. educators, what are you seeing, virtually or not, about the impact of covid-19 on kids mental health? your line is (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. brookings institute put together the human cost of the pandemic: is it time to prioritize well-being? what they found is that, in the u.s. pre-covid, when markets were booming and official unemployment was low, depths of despair took over one million lives in just over a decade. -- deaths of despair took over

one million lives in just over a decade. in march through july of 2020, compared to the same period for 2019 and 2018, there was a sharp increase in calls activated by drug overdoses and deaths, mental and behavioral issues, and refusals to go to hospitals by od victims. it is collected in real time. that is brookings.edu. you can find more there. brian and washington, d.c., go ahead. -- in washington, d.c., go ahead. caller: i was wondering if you had statistics on the native american teenage population. for my understanding, they have been the number one group of children with suicide for a while, even prior to covid. do you have any statistics on that?

any information on that? host: maybe not specific to that, but the cdc report on youth suicide -- look at these numbers. in 2018, suicide rates among ages 10 to 24 was highest for alaska, so you have some native american population in alaska. states with the suicide rates highest during that period were south dakota, montana, wyoming and new mexico. states with the lowest -- new jersey, rhode island, new york, connecticut and massachusetts. this is from the cdc. brian, what have you learned about this? caller: about the suicide rate? host: yeah. it has obviously struck a chord with you, that you remembered it. caller: any time our children are having problems, it affects us because it -- because they

are our future. they have had problems i think for a while. but do not believe we address mental health like we should. -- i do not believe we address mental health like we should. there are problems in our community. i'm a black man and it seems like every time there is a mental health issue, it seems like there is issues when police are called. just for mental health. you do not see -- we do not seem to know how to address it, to deal with it, and do not look at as something we should to try and fix, you know? host: who do you think should be talking about it? caller: well, i think our -- that's a good question, because the parents do not really know. they may have mental issues themselves. they may have issues that need to be addressed. i guess it is our health department.

i guess it is our government. i know a lot of people do not think government can do too much, but i think we need to have our health department, our clinics, and, i guess, maybe even our schools, but the schools are closed now. our kids are not seen the counselors and the psychologist they're supposed to, but i think that should be a really important part of a child's upbringing, and we should have a definite -- our funds, instead of being spread out for a lot of other things, i think we need to have a stronger look at our children and how they are feeling these days. so, yeah. 4 > do you feel -- host: do you feel this is something the president should be talking about? caller: he has a lot on his plate, but i think maybe his

health and human services secretary could be addressing it. that could be part of -- could be part of what they are getting ready to do now with this funding that is coming up. there should be something, i guess, funds or something set aside where people can take their kids to see counselors, speak about what is going on in their lives right now, because they don't really have the ability to speak to people. most doctors now are doing things online. i went to the doctor and everything is online now, so it is kind of hard to even see a doctor. it really is. so -- host: brian, in this story in the new york times reporting on what happened in las vegas schools, they note that some schools have put together resources for kids and parents to address this issue. here's the link that they have. it is to the national

association of school psychologists helping children thrive at school, home, and in life, and they have put together resources for parents and students. k is in california, an educator. what do you teach? caller: i am a substitute, working full-time as a preferred substitute for high school and elementary. can you hear me? host: yeah. caller: yeah. ok. i have not taught since march, but a 17-year-old took his life the first week of january out of the clear blue sky. like there were never any problems with him at all. and i am so glad that you guys are talking about this, because this is, i think, a crisis. there were four students at another school.

i found out last week that have done this. and i guess health and human resources, because we are all still in shock that this happened because this is just not something that this child would do at all. host: kay, has anyone talked about what could have led to this? caller: covid. the thing is, i do not agree that kids should be back in school until this is under control at all, so what they are talking about is more counselors being involved, more professionals. there were no signs. that is the thing, greta. there were no signs. none at all. no red flags. and so that's why everyone is just completely shocked. host: i want to share some

information with all of you that are watching this conversation. there's a national suicide prevention lifeline. the number is 1800-273-8255. there is also the crisis text line. you text "home" to 741741. do you think parents and teachers need to have more direct conversations about this? caller: i think they should, even if the kid says they are fine and there seem to be no signs at all. none. i think every single -- it should be brought up to every single child, even if the child has never had any problems, good grades, good behavior, no drugs, no alcohol. there's a hotline.

if kids are not going to reach out and say everything is fine, i do not know what you do then, except that the authorities and the counselors and i guess the parents, too, need to just go ahead and start making it part of the conversation, because some of the kids are not going to make it part of the conversation until it is too late. host: what role do you see, if any, social media playing? caller: had not really thought about that. my friend's child was not that involved in it, like facebook and twitter or instagram. just more of a studious young man. host: kay in southern california, thank you for calling in. the cdc put together national vital statistics on suicide, and

what they found is that the rate of suicide among those ages 10 to 24 increased nearly 60% between 2007 and 2018. the rise occurred in most states, with 42 experiencing significant increases -- 42% experiencing significant increases, and the rate rose from 6.8 in 2007 to 10.7 in 2018. you can find more information on cdc.gov about this. we will hear more thoughts on the impact of this pandemic on the mental health of kids. gina in alabama, you are a parent. what is it like for you and your kids? caller: hi, greta. you all had a special on the summer -- in the summer. i called in about my son. march 13 is the day that will

live in infamy for my home. that is when -- [indiscernible] you can't come anymore. i brought him down here and i said, look. i don't want to lie to you. you don't get to graduate. you don't get to get a job. you can't go to the military and you cannot go to college right now. it has been up and down. he had a friend that got really, really suicidal. we, as parents, felt -- so he cannot really do anything, but he has been ok. we can afford, thank the lord. we put him on like a universal basic income and he is ok, but he has had bouts with it. he had to get a friend and bring him out here, an african-american friend.

he could not take the isolation. you know, so he brought him out here and we talked with him everything. -- him and everything, you know, whatever, but i just feel lucky that he is doing well and i feel blessed to have had the ability to know rational emotive therapy and have the ability to talk to my son. i ask him daily and, yes, he has felt worthless, useless, hopeless, just the whole gamut of feelings, and i am glad you are bringing attention to this today because, as parents, they will say, oh, i am fine, mama, but a lot of times, they are not fine. thank the lord our schools opened this past fall. my great nephews did not go to school.

they do wednesday virtual because they claim -- and they have had kind of a low transmission -- and it is working out pretty well, but we are just looking forward to maybe, buy this fall, you know, getting -- to maybe, by this fall, you know, getting vaccinated. he is now 18. and getting started with girls again. you know. he has not had girlfriends since his senior year. it is just unreal. it is unnatural. and i just feel blessed that, you know, we have had the means to get through this, and that is what is so frustrating to me sometimes because there are so many around us that got laid off.

and alabama did a pretty good job about getting their unemployment and everything, but a lot of them did not get called back. kind of like 2008, financially, all over again but 10 times worse. but now the food thing is a good thing. i talked with people, you know, check in with them. do you need to come by and get some money off the porch, get you some groceries? they say, oh, no, those increases on food stamps have continued. i know that has been continued since probably march and april when it started, and the school kids are getting foodstamp cards. they have got free and reduced lunch. those parrots are getting foodstamp cards. so our lines around here for food have not been as bad as in megacities and stuff, but

that crisis line number is priceless these days and he do not have to be suicidal to call the crisis -- and you do not have to be suicidal to call the crisis line. i have sometimes used it when i just need somebody to talk to. you just have to talk to them. i am not saying he is out of the woods, my son, you know? because it is a daily struggle and we are just going to hang in there and he will keep checking on his friends and making sure they are mentally ok, you know? i get complaints that, mama, i just want to get my buddies and go to buffalo wild wings and just sit down and eat, you know? host: can i ask, when you were in the crisis moment with your son, and i understand you

are still, but what could you have used from your local government, the school, the federal government? caller: there's nothing here, greta. there is nothing -- nothing -- here other than the federal crisis line. they closed down all of our mental health stuff along time ago. he had a lapse in insurance until january 1, so it is not even like i could have taken him to the hospital and gotten him into what is called decatur west or something, like an impatient type of thing, which it did not get -- something, like an inpatient type of thing, which it did not get to that point. it is just more of relying on family, you know, relying on his online friends, and we are here for him, but the other kids

are just kind of a little worse off than him, you know? he is one of those kind of glass is half full kind of kids, and he has been through a lot emotionally and i cannot imagine if you are a half empty glass kind of kid, you know, what are they doing? are their parents talking to them? you know? host: gina, on that note that you just struck, i want to show you and others from that same public service announcement that brad hunstable put together. "almost 13" is what it is called. they talk about the importance of parents and everyone talking about this issue. [video clip] >> step one is you have to have a conversation, a frank conversation. >> we have to use the word

suicide as early as you would start talking about feelings or ways of behaving, expectations of behavior at school. you would also talk about, if somebody hurts your feelings, i will expect you to talk to me about that. i want to know what you are thinking. there are a lot of families who are resolving a lot of conflict. they are sending a lot of good -- they are spending a lot of good family time together, having these conversations. this is an opportunity for families to talk about things that maybe are unexplored. host: a public service announcement called "almost 13.." eva in st. petersburg, florida. are your kids in school right now? caller: i am actually a grandparent. host: and what are you seeing? how are they doing? caller: they are fine.

they are interacting, attending school. parents chose to allow them to go to the school due to the fact that they have to work. and one of my children, sons, just happened to notice that her son was feeling depressed, so she chose to send him to school to get him out of that depression. so social interaction is very important for children, for people in general. we all need to interact socially with the ones that we have interacted with before. it is important to be able to express ourselves. and the one thing i noticed about the school system is that there were not -- is that they were not prepared for this pandemic.

i experienced keeping my grandchildren during the spring because i was working from home. i was telecommuting and i have been telecommuting for nine months, but during those months before the summer months, we experienced keeping the children here, watching them online. it just was not up to par. they were not getting much out of the learning. the teachers were not prepared. they need to be prepared. i think a lot needs to go into the education of the parents as well as the teachers and it is just not enough there. it has just -- it is just insufficient. host: ok, eva. kim in tennessee, how old are your kids? caller: can you hear me? host: we can. caller: can you hear me?

host: we can. kim, in tennessee, how old are your kids? caller: early 20's. host: ok. caller: i am really, really frustrated, because trillions of dollars have been allocated to airlines and stuff like that. they could have been used to put equipment and schools, ventilation -- put equipment and schools -- in schools, ventilation, whatever. $16 billion to the airlines, but we do not want people to be flying anyway. $8 billion for jets that will not fly. small business loans that had a minimum of $250,000. that just does not make any sense at all. they went ahead and did another one, another one.

we need to stop. we need to take a look at where the money goes, because when we are talking about people have to pay the rent, food stamps, food insecurity -- ok. they have a moratorium on evictions. i have not heard anything said about it, but i noticed it when i went to the store. here in tennessee, they -- biden, here are things -- plans he said went along with things he signed. snap benefits. snap is cash. you have food and cash benefits. it did not make any sense, the excuses -- not excuses, but the things they were stating. it was rush, rush, rush, we have to rush, rush, rush.

they have not distributed all the money to the banks yet even. host: ok. and president biden has announced he would like congress to take up another $1.9 trillion in covid relief spending from education -- spending. from education week, the 1.9 trillion dollar plan includes money for k-12 schools to help them reopen and address the various impacts of covid. there are other parts of the plan that would help schools as well. state and local governments would get $350 million, reopening schools safely, $130 million, covid-19 testing for schools, long-term care facilities, $50 million, and higher education relief for public institutions, $35

million. it goes on childcare, developmental block grants -- it goes onto childcare, developmental grants, assistance to needy families. we are getting your thoughts on the mental health impact on the youth because of this covid 19 virus. cdc has put together resources for parents on their website. you can go to cdc.gov, parental resources kit for adolescents, and you can find several different aspects there for you if needed. usa today has a headline as well from back in august about what the country is seeing. we can put that up for our viewers as well. usa today on the toll of this pandemic on suicides across the country.

we will show you that as we go to kathy in ohio. -- in cuyahoga falls, ohio. good morning to you. caller: thank you for taking my call. sorry. i will try to be as set synced as i can. this is -- i will try to be as succinct as i can. this is an emotional issue. i think the covid is causing isolation on top of isolation. i would say that i am currently coping with the effects of ptsd and i would say that one of the best things that parents can do for their kids is to just take the time to listen and try to understand and it does take time. i am currently still working on my ptsd and the traumas that caused it and it is not an easy

thing to do for an adult, and i think that kids are amazing for all that they cope with in our current society, and there are some things they should not be expected to overcome, some things that i learned about that i did not realize is that we live in a rape culture of sorts, where it happens a lot. not a lot gets done about it. i have seen the screen -- i was in therapy when the shooting happened in las vegas and i was shot at. that was traumatic. i just wish the best for everyone and hope that everyone can figure out a way to help each other. thank you. host: kathy in ohio. sam in bakersfield, california sends this text, writing "parents need to get their kids outside working. the hard work of gardening,

planting, building will be a reminder that they are not alone ever. no one is ever alone," he writes "god is here with us." ann in silver springs, maryland, what do you teach? caller: a mixture of middle and high school. we have been up and running five days a week since the start of the school year. it has been a great experience. school has probably 150 -- the school has probably 150. it has grown. people have transferred their kids into the school. the kids are happy, functioning. students who were at the school previously but do not feel comfortable learning in school have an option of learning remotely at the same time. there are a set of protocols. students periodically, and faculty, have had to quarantine because of either covid-like

symptoms until they are cleared, or somebody that they are connected to have a positive covid test. then they have to quarantine for two weeks so that they learn remotely while they are quarantining, but it is great to see these kids in school happy, functioning, and i forget the exact detail, but we have somebody we consider our covid's are -- our covid czar who tracks everything and make sure our protocols are being followed. -- makes sure our protocols are being followed. at the school, the infection rate is lower than the county. i encourage people getting their kids in school. host: you say the kids are happy. did they have till learned -- did they have to learn virtually at the end of last year and did you see it have any impact on

them? caller: yes. i lost i would say 10% of my students. i counted it and i say lost -- kind of, they were students who stopped participating. we were reaching out, trying to get them back engaged in what we were offering virtual, and 10% of my students basically just stopped functioning. host: and what did you hear from them? i mean, did they talk about what was going on? caller: they just -- some did. others, it was harder to reach. some it was more conversations with the parents. they cannot get them engaged. they could not get them to participate with the, you know -- do their assignments, keep up, show up on zooms, things like that.

it was just parents would hit a wall with their kids. one thing, the kids were sleeping. their cycle of sleep was terrible. and has turned to technology. it is horrible for kids. they are becoming so much more engaged with looking at technology instead of the healthier lifestyle that the typical school day structure offers. host: and what is that, ann? what is it about the school day structure that helps students staring at a screen to do school? caller: you have to get up and be present at 8:30 in the morning for starters. we did not run zooms all day long. we did not think that was good for the students either, but if a student is not expected to be up and present for the school

day at 8:30 in the morning, it is a lot easier for them to be on their phones until 3:00 a.m. or whatever, and we saw that with some of the kids that were falling off. host: ann, what did your school need from your state, government, or federal government? caller: i don't have any answer for that. host: ok. thank you for calling in. ann in silver spring, maryland, echo educator -- an educator there. let's go to patrick in laurel, maryland. how old are your kids? caller: 13 and 14. they are a sophomore and freshman and high school. thank god there schools can do the hybrid method so that they are in school at least two days out of the week, but ultimately,

in addressing your question, i remember earlier the question was asked whether or not the government should say anything about it, and my answer to that question would be absolutely. this is a national emergency when it comes down to kids and the committing of suicide and mental health, and i am very surprised that there is not any more engagement in that issue. i feel that, if there were, then at least parents as well as children could be informed of the possibility that it is an issue -- possibility that an issue is occurring. ultimately, when we start talking about normal is see -- about normalcy, about everybody needs to be in schools, then ultimately, america in general needs to embrace what we need to do to get rid of the coronavirus.

i believe that if america feels that the kids are suffering, what can we to do to prevent the kids from hurting themselves, i think that would maybe embrace people more to do what they are supposed to do out here in maryland. we really do a lot of the wearing of the masks and doing what we are supposed to do in order to get back to normalcy. and starting march 1, our governor is trying to implement that all schools start the hybrid method, but for right now, in prince george's county, it is all virtual. in anne arundel county, it is hybrid. i believe in howard county it is hybrid. we need to do something so that america understands that in order for these kids to go back to school, in order for the kids to really feel good about

themselves again, we need to do what we need to do to get rid of the virus. host: patrick's thoughts there in laurel, maryland. if you are watching at the beginning of today's program -- were watching at the beginning of today's program, you saw a father who put out a video back in april after the death of his son. the video went viral. many people saw him talk about his son feeling isolated because he was not in school. brad hunstable followed up with that message in july with a call to social media companies and politicians. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> and those that are not on the side of supporting our youth, those who are exploiting our youth for financial gain, and not doing your part to help develop them and make them

better people, make us a better society, i am after you. i am coming after you. we have got to fix this. and my message is -- to politicians of all sides, to leaders of certain corporations, think about what you are doing to the youth of this country. it is no longer going to be acceptable to exploit and make money. it is just not. host: brad hunstable. again, he lost his son to suicide, 12 years old, in 2020. we are getting your thoughts on the mental impact of children dealing with the coronavirus pandemic either at school or not. getting your thoughts on that this morning. we want to continue. if you are a parent to, we have a line for you, educators, and

all others. meredith in massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning. host: are your kids at home or in school? caller: we live in massachusetts, so i guess a different environment than a lot of the nation. my kids have been at home since march. my oldest, who is a ninth grader. and i have a seventh grader. by seventh grader will be at home all year. my ninth grader started hybrid, two days a week. host: what did you see in her state of mind, her behavior, by going back to school? caller: so, i am a huge -- i am a personal survivor. i attempted suicide. my husband's uncle committed suicide. suicide is at the forefront of our minds. both of my children have been in

therapy for years because i believe that it is important for me, as their mother, to recognize that i am their mother and i provide what i can but i cannot provide everything. and my son has been in therapy since he was in third grade, a psychologist who has been instrumental for us and has a rapport with him. my 15-year-old is transgender and has a whole bunch with that, right? so therapy for her as well because i believe that it is important as a parent -- yes, i want my school environment and government to support rental health, but i do believe, as a parent, it is important to provide whatever needed. just like if my kid is sick, i take them to their doctor. mental health is at the forefront of my mind and my husband's mind as parents. i have been in therapy for years off and on, so school is good

for her. it was overwhelming because, you know, not physically being around people for a long time can certainly affect your -- having been around a lot of people, it can be social anxiety, right? that is my 15-year-old, who, again, is born a female but is on the male side, so we refer to her -- or him, as they, were leo -- or leo, their given name, but in massachusetts, it is quite different. our kids are instructed by their teachers. they are instructed at actual class events and give an opportunity for working between. the instruction is not as long as it would be in a school

environment, but our school -- my kids go to a project -- to a charter school and it is a project based environment, so they are given the opportunity to have that structure still via remote. i feel very fortunate in that. i understand people have other situations where there remote schooling is not that. i know, as a parent, i feel fortunate we have this opportunity, but i am glad it is not something we have to pay for. our state has been shut down since march, period. we have never opened all the way up. masks are not optional. our state is i guess slightly different. we are in the little bit of a bubble. -- a little bit of a bubble. our numbers are still not good because people still do not listen, but, as a whole, that is where we are at.

host: ok. meredith in massachusetts. for our radio listeners, the national suicide prevention lifeline is 18002738255. you can also text the crisis text line the word "home" to 741 741. felicia, in phoenix, arizona, we will go to you next. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am well. what are your thoughts on this? caller: my -- as the mother of six children, my son, who is 16. i have an 11-year-old, 12-year-old, and two others.

my son started exhibiting aggressive behavior. i addressed it first as any parent would. i listened to his frustrations and told him, ok, well, if your brothers and sisters are getting on your nerves, tell me first. do not take it out on them. he did not. this kept happening to the point where i had to take my daughter to get her arm checked because he twisted it so badly. i reached out to the mental health on the back of our insurance card and they forwarded me through, ushered me through, to a behavioral health center, and they told me he needs to be evaluated. i took command and they kept him for eight days. -- i took him in and they kept them for eight days. when he got home, you know, they had him on medication. i thought, maybe that did work.

eight days later, he was attacking them again. i called the mental health place where he was and they said bring him back in. he was there for eight days again. when it was time for him to come home, they asked him a series of questions, one of which was, do you think you have a handle on your aggression and your frustration in dealing with your siblings? he kind of chuckled and said i don't know. i have to go home and see. i told them, he is not ready to go home. if he is saying that, then he is saying i'm going to do it again. i said i cannot put myself, my husband or my kids in jeopardy. he is 6'4". he is very strong. i said, can you keep him until you can tell me he is confident he will not hurt anyone?

like the previous couple callers, they play this game where they want to financially suck out as much as they can from your insurance and then send them back home. i said he is not ready to come home. they called cps in and they said this mother is not willing to take her child home, and they told me, well, you need to call cps and explain your situation and see if they can give you some options. trying to give my son help, i called dcs. it generated a report against me, my own call. they threatened that if i do not go to pick him up, it will be bad for me and my family. and let me tell you, it has been, because i pick him up under their collusion and brought him home and, two days

later, he was threatening to cut my 11-year-old's throat and take his vocal cords out because he wanted to go to the park. i called the same people and said, this is on you. i told you he was not ready to come home. so they came out and listened to him and listened to me and said, ok, we will take into this other hospital. they took him to another hospital that has behavioral health units and they said they are running tests on him. they were calling me to become pick him up the next day -- me to come pick him up the next day because when he is around other people, he acts like nothing is wrong, "my mother is overreacting." they say, what about the siblings you hurt? "well, it was not that bad." it was bad, bad enough for me to

take them to the hospital. so i am calling. i am so glad you had this venue for people like myself to call, because i have been nothing but frustrated dealing with dcs. under their threat that i will never be able to work with children again, i will probably be on a registry for parents who neglect and abandon their children, all of this, i sent my husband to go pick him up that second time, but the third time, when the crisis team came and said, no, he needs to go in the hospital, i said, ok, i am not going to pick him up this time. they are going to help him. this is all in september of 2020. here we are in january of 2021 and they have these charges against me and my husband of neglect and abandonment. when they had him assessed -- i assisted -- i insisted he be

assessed. it came out he was bipolar on top of having oppositional defiant disorder and reactive detachment disorder. he has some sort of dysfunctional personality disorder. most recently, he is high functioning autistic. and so they came back at me and said, ok, we are willing to drop the charges against you. we will do a pretrial. you and your husband, if you agree to him staying in the custody of the state, then we will drop these charges. so i am telling you the story. we go to them for help, which, really did not exis. we become victimized or criminalized as parents who do not care, only for them to find out yes, they did care. he did have underlying issues

going on and we are going to keep giving care now and process him. a group home will earn higher fees from the state because now he is listed as a vpd individual. here we are. we spent the holidays without our son. we have not even had communication with him because we do not know what they told him, but whatever they told him, he is so angry with us or, you know, he just does not want to respond to us. now they are doing -- you know, all kinds of things to try to help the process of communicating, but the damage is already done, and i am so enraged and hurt and disappointed. i understand mental health systems are failing all over the place, but we went to them for help for our son because i was fearful that, well, if he cannot

get his aggression out on them, he might turn it on himself. this is what we end up with -- our child taken away from us and it is like, what can we do? you know? i am sure he is thinking, they did not want me. they cannot be further from the truth. i was just trying to get him help. host: ok. let me just share the national suicide prevention lifeline one more time for all of you. 18002738255. crisis text line, text the word "home" to 741741. mona in sioux falls, south dakota. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. you read from the cdc report about the rise in suicide rates over the last several years. so this is not just a problem due to the pandemic.

this is a problem that has been facing us for some time. and these societal problems are -- our inability to address them have come into sharper focus. we in south dakota have never shut down. schools shut down in march, april and may, but all students had the possibility to go back to school sometime this fall. not without problems of course. and we need to remember -- i am not sure that has been safely done for our teachers as well as our students, and we need to remember that we all could and should get our students back in

school relatively safely. if we would be willing to do all the mitigation efforts to get the virus under control. host: we will leave it there for now. we are going to take a quick break. when we come back, what the house set to deliver an article of impeachment to the senate today, we will be joined by a "new york times" writer to preview what to expect. later, moody's economist mark zandy will discuss how the biden adminstration could impact the economy. ♪ use our website, c-span.org /coronavirus, to follow the

coronavirus outbreak. track the outbreak with interactive maps at c-span.org /coronavirus. >> tonight on "the communicators," author sarah frier discusses her book, "no filter, the inside story of instagram." >> see stem -- c-span has an instagram, bloomberg has an instagram. it's all of these accounts doing instagram, but there are also these homegrown people who otherwise may be wouldn't have a voice who are building these audiences without having to go through the normal gatekeepers.

becoming a comedian without needing to book a set. becoming a fitness instructor without having to work at equinox. people can just demonstrate what they are good at and build a following, and eventually become famous. >> author sarah frier, tonight at 8:00 p.m. on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> biden nominees will be on capitol hill this week for their confirmation hearings, tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern before the senate commerce committee, and wednesday at three clock p.m. eastern, former white house chief of staff dennis mcdonough, nominated for secretary of veterans affairs. watch the confirmation hearings live on c-span, on demand at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: nick fandos is a congressional correspondent with "the york times -- "the new york times." thank you for joining us. let's start with the article in -- the article of impeachment. what will that look like? guest: the nine impeachment managers selected by speaker pelosi will gather with the single charge of insurrection for his role in stirring up the january 6 mob that attacked the capitol, and they will ceremonially progress across the capital to the rotunda, where three weeks ago, there was tear gas fired at some of these writers that entered the building, and they will walk over to the senate, be invited into the chamber, and deliver

that article, at which point the leader of the senate, chuck schumer, will basically say, we will see you back here tomorrow. on tuesday, the senate will reconvene at 1:00 as a court of impeachment. the article will be exhibited, which means read aloud. senators will be sworn in. technically, the trial will be underway, but instead of the typical trial that we have come to expect or that we saw a year ago, the senate will then recess to its normal business for a couple of weeks to work on confirming joe biden's cabinet, work on his covid bill, which is top priority, and allow president trump's defense team to start preparing for the trial. there will be a flurry of written memos back and forth between the prosecution and defense before the arguments of the trial finally get underway the week of february 8.

host: your paper reports, "mcconnell seeks delay of trump impeachment trial." guest: that's right. there seems to be mutual interest in the delay, but it was first proposed by senator mcconnell, now the minority leader, the republican leader in the senate, who spoke with president trump's newly appointed lawyers last week, who asked basically for time to get the case up and going off the ground. but the impeachment has been proceeding fast, as we know. i think democrats want the trial to be fair. they agreed that this makes sense, and so does president biden, so there was mutual interest in putting this off for a couple of weeks. it ended up being slightly less time than mcconnell had asked for, but all sides seem to be a minimal to starting the trial on february 9.

host: the leader of the republican party in the senate, mitch mcconnell, said the former president needed time to put his defense team together. who will represent the president? guest: what we know so far about the president's defense team is that it is going to be led by butch bowers, who is an attorney from south carolina who was recommended by senator lindsey graham of that state. bowers is not all that well-known in washington. he has represented several republican governors in south carolina, including mark sanford in 2009 when sanford was potential he going to be impeached himself after having an extramarital affair. we don't know who else will be working with bowers. this is a pretty different team then we saw a year ago, when the president was first tried in the senate, when he was were presented by the white house counsel, by a large team of

personal lawyers who were relatively well known in washington. alan dershowitz, ken starr both spoken his defense. this time we expect a more paired down team with less star power. host: on the democratic side, who will be leading the prosecution? guest: speaker nancy pelosi has appointed nine house managers, the prosecution. the lead of that team is jamie raskin of maryland, who represent the suburbs right out of washington, d.c. he is a former maryland state lawmaker and a constitutional law professor. he helped write the article of the beach meant and is a go to for issues only constitution. he will be leading a team that includes a cross-section of the house. david cicilline of rhode island,

ted lieu of california. the list goes on. there are a number of former prosecutors in that group, or individuals with courtroom experience. that seems to have be something of a premium for speaker pelosi. the team does not include anyone who was on the prosecution team a year ago. it is a bit lower profile than that team, which included adam schiff, who is well-known, hakeem jeffries, the potential next, credit leader in the house. this is a slightly younger, slightly less senior team. it does not include any republicans. some had hoped speaker pelosi would choose perhaps one of the 10 republicans who voted to impeach the president to join this team. that did not end up being the case. host: we are getting your thoughts on this we can

congress. democrats, dial-in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us with your thoughts as well, your name, city and state. this kicks off when the arctic of impeachment is brought over to the senate, with the trial to begin on february 8. we will also discuss the biden adminstration's first full week. on friday, senate majority leader chuck schumer spoke about the impending senate impeachment trial. ruth what he had to say. [video clip] sen. schumer: -- here is what he had to say. [video clip] sen. schumer: i have been

speaking to the republican leader about the time and duration of the trial, but make no mistake, a trial will be held in the united states senate and there will be a vote whether to convict the president. i have spoken to speaker pelosi, who informed me that the articles will be delivered to the senate on monday. i've heard some of my republican colleagues argue that this trial would be unconstitutional because donald trump is no longer in office, an argument that has been roundly repudiated , debunked by hundreds of constitutional scholars, left, right and center, and defies basic common sense. it makes no sense whatsoever that a president or any official could commit a heinous crime against our country and then be permitted to resign so as to avoid accountability and a vote to disbar them from future office. it makes no sense. regardless, the purveyors of this unusual argument are trying

to delay the inevitable. the fact is the house will deliver the article of impeachment to the senate. the senate will conduct a trial of the impeachment of donald trump. it will be a full trial. it will be a fair trial. but make no mistake, there will be a trial, and when that trial ends, senators will have to decide if they believe donald john trump incited the insurrection against the united states. host: that was the new majority leader saying he will have a fair trial in the senate, but will it be a quick one? guest: that is a great question, which i think all senators, the house, and reporters would like to get an answer to. we think there is kind of a convergence of interest when this trial gets underway to get it over with quickly. democrats and republicans have their own reasons for that.

i think we could see the meat of the proceeding, the oral presentation, the votes play out over the course of just a week in early february. obviously, if senators decide that they want to see additional evidence or call more witnesses, that could significantly expand it, and we could be talking about several weeks. but i think, unlike the president's first trial, they would like to get this one done much more quickly and move back onto the biden presidency, or republicans move on from having to litigate issues around donald trump, somebody they are hoping to have -- [indiscernible] host: -- spoke out against the senate impeachment trial. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> what do you think the rules should be about the length of

the trial and whether or not to allow witnesses to be called? sen. rubio:'s of all, i think the trial is stupid. it is counterproductive -- first of all, i think the trial is stupid. it is counterproductive. i think we already have a flaming fire in this country, and this is dumping gasoline on it. richard nixon resigned, and history held him accountable. i think the president is entitled to due process. i think he is entitled to have a defense. i think he is entitled to present evidence, and the house doesn't have much of a record of witnesses and so forth because they frankly rammed it through very quickly, so obviously fairness is important, no matter who it is, but i just want to repeat, i think this is really bad for the country. not just as it going to keep us from focusing on really important things, but it is also just going to stir it up even more and make it even harder to get things done moving forward.

host: nick sandos, is marco rubio a stand alone in that opinion? guest: i think there are a number of republicans that agree with him. question is going to be how many. we know several republicans seem to be open to the impeachment case now that it has arrived, and that includes mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, who has told his colleagues that it will be a vote of conscience, and that he is not sure yet if he will vote to acquittal convict, which is a far cry -- to acquit or convict, which is a far cry from the last trial, where he vowed to assure that donald trump was acquitted. there are those who do not want to deal with this at all, that are arguing that holding a trial for a former president is unconstitutional. that is an argument that the senate itself has disagreed within the past.

it has tried a former official, a secretary of war in the 1870's, and it is unlikely that any court is going to agree with them since this trial will go on. but it could give them enough cover that there are concerns about what impact convicting president trump might have on the country that would give them enough justification to acquit him without having to wait too far -- to wade too far into the facts of the case which are troubling to almost everyone we have spoken to. in some sense, the victims of this attack were forced to flee the capital and threats were made on their lives, so they have an interest in sticking with some of the process concerns. as for whether or not a trial will or won't inflame tensions in the country, i think there's

arguments on either side of that point, but certainly republicans would prefer that this was not happening. host: nicholas sandos is our guest, congressional correspondent -- nicholas fandos is our guest, congressional correspondent. we will turn to callers now. caller: i'm going to turn to biden here. he said words matter. if we go for insurrection, it will be a disaster for both parties because right now -- let me get back to words matter. we've heard heard immunity. we hear it daily. we are bombarded by it. but sometimes we add the word natural. natural heard immunity -- natural herrd immunity -- natural herd immunity means

we let some get it and die. it is the textbook, dictionary definition of genocide. we are experiencing right now the first one he first century genocide, and we are all blind to it because we are all complicit. we just sat here and watched it happen and did nothing, and that doesn't jibe with us. we know we are all good on both sides. patriots on both sides. but the real thing is sitting right in front of us. we need that second impeachment article to address this because it is a trial. everyone forgets. it is supposed to be a trial, and we have more facts where we show that they are promoting, even when they shortened it to pidgin english, herd immunity, we literally have video of people and emails where they are promoting natural herd immunity. they are still doing it in

florida. we have interest who are sick with pre-existing conditions. host: michael, who would that charge be against? guest: it is not just -- caller: it is not just genocide. i thing it is a general thing against humidity. host: nicholas, let me ask you, what is congress working on in response to the pandemic? guest: the observation i would make about this is the house chose to have a very narrow case around this insurrection because they thought it was the cleanest and most forceful case they could make that might win republican support. but the concerns that are being raised by this caller i think are on president biden's mind. it is why he has been very reticent to speak about the trial, to try to keep himself out of it. he is focusing on the

coronavirus which is killing thousands of americans per day. he's pushing congress to start moving quickly, including during this reprieve before the trial begins to start moving a $2 trillion economic and health relief bill that includes money for vaccine distribution, money for states, for americans who are struggling. that is the priority, and there are some important decisions we can take in the coming days, with his advisors in the white house and in the senate on whether they can pursue a bipartisan bill and narrow some of their ambitions, or whether they try to use the budget reconciliation process to pass this bill through the senate without republican votes, that have it quite a bit larger and

more ambitious. host: perry in california, a republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. i was listening just before you started taking calls. i just woke up. you are speaking of this trial we are going to hold on donald trump. considering he is out of office, i find it very interesting. should the democrats lose power in the next two years, wouldn't that open the door to retroactively prosecute barack obama for fast and furious theft , for all he knowingly, willingly, and forethought sold those guns to can cartels? host: nick fandos, is there a political parallel with moving forward with this impeachment? a headline from a few days ago, "rescue trump? biden is wary, but his voters

are eager." guest: i think the caller raises a couple of interesting points here. this idea of retroactively prosecuting someone or opening the door to that has been used to try to dissuade democrats for moving forward. i think democrats are seeing in a very real way there are a lot of opportunity costs to pursuing an impeachment of a former official or former president. it is stepping on the early days of joe biden's presidency, and i think they feel that is worth it, but it is costly. i imagine that if her publicans were to reclaim power in 2022 in the senate and the house that they would most likely decide that pursuing a president who's been out of office at that point for almost six years is probably not worth the cost. perhaps they would look for a reason to impeach a sitting

president, but it is hard to imagine them going that far back. while there is precedent for the senate to hold an impeachment trial of a former official, in that case, as in this one, the impeachment took place as they were in office or leaving office. it didn't take place years after the fact. so i think it might be a bit more difficult to argue that the senate could just go back and impeach someone from half a decade ago. but technically, that is a debate that could happen. host: gary, new jersey, democratic color. -- democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. god bless c-span. god bless you folks. i am going to be 84 in three weeks. i live in east brunswick, new jersey. i believe the impeachment has to take place because i have followed the rise and career of donald john trump, and the

insurrection that took place on january 6 tore the country apart . it reminded me not so much of nixon. it reminded me of the civil war. the country is divided. president biden is bringing the country together. on friday, january tony second, the anniversary of the death of my youngest daughter from a rare heart defect. she had excellent surgery, but they couldn't rebuild the heart. she passed on that day at 9:00. gary was invited to get the vaccine at mount sinai, where i have been a patient in my family has been a patient for 100 years. they did it beautifully. people of all races and religions. the reason i am very upset, i remember the day when richard nixon stepped down. i had been married a couple of years in northern new jersey,

with a wife and a five-year-old child. nixon waved, went to new jersey. not to new york, not to washington. he wrote his memoirs, and there was quiet. he did some very terrible things. i read the biographies of his life, and the books by woodward and bernstein. a guy from the bronx got a letter from the president on friday for the vaccine, thanking him for his support of that institution. i've experienced this commission because of my jewish face, and what happened at the capitol blew my mind away. they were going out for blood. host: nicholas fandos, what does this article of impeachment actually say about what happened on january 6? guest: as i noted earlier, this

charge is incitement of insurrection, and it tells a slightly longer story that president trump, in an effort to overturn the election and overturn his election defeat to claim another four years in office, began propagating unsupported and debunked claims about widespread fraud, and essentially riled up with this lie in his words at a rally before the riot on january 6, and cited thousand of his supporters to go into tech the capital -- go and attack the capitol, where they were meeting to certify joe biden's election victory, to try and disrupt that process and overturn the election. obviously, we know that that ins up leaving five people dead ended untold damage -- people

dead and did untold damage to the capitol. people in congress and the president went into hiding as the building was stormed -- and the vice president went into hiding as the build was stormed. they wanted to potentially detain members of congress so that they would vote the right way. some of the details are not included in the article, but that is essentially the scope of what the article is, that it was insurrection against the government against the united states, and cited by the president. host: jim in missouri, democratic caller. caller: good morning. referring to marco rubio's little speech you showed us, i say once again the republicans

are accusing the democrats of doing what they are doing. rubio is saying the country is on fire, they are pouring gas with this impeachment. it is their denial of the duly elected president in biden that is causing the country burn. if trump had come out a week after the election and conceded, we would have missed two months of fraud and lies and all sorts of wrongdoing. host: catherine next, in nevada, independent. what do you think? caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i am not a person that is well spoken, but i will try best to be concise. i am calling is independent,

nonpartisan. the reason i am calling is i was just hoping to voice my concern that i feel the process of the impeachment is a blind, vindictiveness versus ignoring the -- versus ignoring the needs, the basic needs of the american public. host: catherine, we are running short on time, so i will ask nicholas fandos about the needs of the american people. what is the agenda this week of the house and senate? what will be on the floor this week? guest: as we said, the articles of impeachment will go to the senate tonight, and the court of impeachment will meet briefly tomorrow, but before that, the

senate will be voting on the confirmation of janet yellen to be treasury secretary, a key position in the biden cabinet that is overseeing the economic response to the crisis, and the senate is hoping to vote over the balance of the week on other key positions, like a potential nominee for attorney general, the departed of homeland security. those are positions -- [indiscernible] people who were involved in this attack on the capitol and are responsible for keeping the country safe, so they are very focused on the bottom cabinet. both chambers i think are going to be working this week to try to begin moving forward this coronavirus relief legislation. they are going to have to make decisions about whether or not to pursue a partisan or bipartisan process, and that will affect how big the bill is, what is included in it, whether it is principally a vaccine and health care bill or if it is

more partisan, a broader economic stimulus plan that also includes vaccine and other health provisions. host: what do we know about the president's schedule this week? guest: this is going to be the president's first full week in office. he is going to be, as we understand it, staying here in washington, d.c. up the white house, continuing to roll out a series of executive orders each day, as he started to do last week, which are either reversing policies of his predecessor in key areas, responding to the coronavirus, the economic crisis, different actions he can take unilaterally. i think we can expect he will be spending a lot of the week just trying to get his team in place and get things up and running. host: you can follow nicholas fandos if you go to nytimes.com.

he is there congressional respondent, also on twitter. thanks for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: when we come back, we will turn our attention to the economy and what is next for the bided administration's mom -- the biden adminstration's money policy. we will talk to moody's chief economist mark zandi. ♪ >> bided nominees gina raimondo and denis mcdonough will be on capitol hill for their confirmation hearings. tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, rhode island governor gina raimondo, commerce secretary nominee. wednesday at 3:00 p.m. eastern, former white house chief of staff dennis mcdonough, nominated for secretary of veterans affairs. watch the confirmation hearings live on c-span, on demand at c-span.org, or listen on the

c-span radio app. >> use c-span.org/coronavirus to follow the federal response to the coronavirus outbreak. watch searchable video any time on demand, and track the spread with interactive maps, all that c-span.org/coronavirus. >> listen to c-span's podcast, "the weekly." this week, the former chief of staff in the george h dubya bush administration and former jet petey -- former deputy chief of staff in the -- george h w bush administration and former deputy chief of staff in the george w. bush administration. >> people who don't want the president making just government decisions. the president should be making presidential decisions, not every government decision. he will we be blamed for every

government decision, but the precious time should be spent making presidential decisions and getting ready to make tough presidential decisions rather than making government decisions. it is your job to make sure people who are making government decisions are making them the right way. >> joint c-span's "the weekly" where you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is mark sandy, chief he cut -- mark zandi, chief economist with moody's economics. what is the state of our economy right now? guest: greta, it is struggling. we saw that in the december data for the economy. we lost jobs in december. retail sales declined. claims for unemployment insurance remain consistently above about a million per week. just for context, and a well-functioning economy, we should be seeing something like

200,000, two hundred 50,000 claims. sentiment is very soft. obviously it is not hard to connect the struggling economy back to the pandemic. the re-intensification of the virus, the infections, the hospitalizations, the deaths have had an impact on the entire global economy, but also here at home, the economy is weak. host: what if congress and president trump had not signed into law the covid relief money that we saw, the first round of it and the money that followed? what if that hadn't happened? guest: it would be much worse. the support from the federal government has been massive, and it has been critical to keeping the economy together as well as it has been kept together. if you total it all up, at this point things that have actually been passed into law, it is nearly 15 percent of gdp, and

just for a little but of context, going back to the financial crisis a little over a decade ago, the total amount of support the government brought was less than 10%. so not even counting what this next congress might do or not do , already the support has been very substantive, and that has been key. in this most recent fiscal relief package, the $900 billion relief package that was passed at the end of december, came just in the nick of time because without that help, without that support which is now just getting into the economy today, without that the struggling economy probably would have gone back into recession. it would be a so-called double dip recession. so that support has been critical to the economy. host: why is that? why is that potential there? what sectors are seeing the greatest loss that could drag this economy overall into a recession? guest: it is industry's directly

impacted by the pandemic. restaurants, leisure and hospitality, recreational activities, personal services. the suit i am wearing, be i'm a little embarrassed to say, i haven't cleaned this in about a year because i barely wear it. i only wear it when i am doing some thing like this. retail activity, transportation, the airlines, those are the industries that have been hit very hard by the pandemic and continue to struggle, and obviously this recent reintensification of the virus is doing a lot more damage. the other thing adding to the problems for these industries is that it is the dead of winter, and obviously for restaurants, you can't eat outside in many parts of the country, the restaurants have no choice but to stop operating or really have to pull back, so those industries are getting hit hardest. host: president biden once

congress to spend another -- president biden wants congress to spend another $1.9 trillion. he referenced moody's analysis and his plan, saying it would add to the jobs. guest: he's right. we did an analysis of his proposals, and if passed into law, it would have a significant beneficial impact upon the economy, not only helping the economy get to the other side of the pandemic, but giving it a bit of a boost to getting back to full employment more quickly. if you take a look at the numbers, it would add about 7.5 million jobs to the economy over the coming year, which is meaningful. again, for a little bit of context, the economy is still down about 10 million jobs from its pre-pandemic peak, so we get the bulk of those jobs back in that release package -- in that

relief package proposed by president biden. host: where would that relief come from? guest: we borrow it, deficit financed, like other packages financed there and be pandemic. this is the u.s. treasury issuing bonds, raising money from investors, taking that money and using that to finance all of the different aspects of the support. the unemployment insurance, the paycheck protection program, money for small business, help for airlines and schools, money for vaccine distribution, all of those things. anymore normal time, it wouldn't be a productive policy, but in a crisis, with very high unemployment, underemployment, with very low inflation, well below the federal reserve's 2% target, and with the federal reserve clearly articulating that it plans to keep interest

rates very low, that is a time when we should be borrowing a to support the economy to get the other side and get back to full employment as quickly as possible. host: when you look at the debt of this country, if you go to usdebtclock.org, it is nearly 28 trillion dollars. how do you get that number down after this pandemic is over? guest: good point. this is going to be an issue. lawmakers really have had no choice here, no good choice. that is to go about and borrow money, provide support to the economy, try to keep it together as well as it has been kept together. if they did do that, the economy would be much weaker in our fiscal problems would be even worse. but as economists are want to say, there is no free lunch. this is going to be very costly.

we have a higher debt load, and we are going to have to address it when we are back to full employment. that will require both restraint on government spending, but also tax increases. both of those things will be necessary to get our fiscal situation back in order and getting that debt load back down again. host: let's get to calls. beth in tampa, florida, your questions or comments on the economy. caller: good morning, mark and greta. thank you for taking my call. i've been watching this since the beginning, all of this in the news. as far as the economy, i personally feel that the income levels for the stimulus checks are extremely high. from what my husband and i live off of, we don't have children, but i feel that if they are wanting to actually help people

that have been impacted by this in their income and their loss of income, they are giving it to people that didn't lose income, to people that make hundreds of thousands of dollars. for one person to make that kind of money and need a stimulus check is very questionable to me. what kind of spending did they do in their life? because my husband and i live off of maybe $70,000 a year and feed ourselves and plenty, and wouldn't even need it necessarily. i didn't lose my job -- need it if i didn't lose my job, which i did. host: understood. so these stimulus checks, what are people doing with them, and what impact they have on the economy? guest: i hear the caller. as you know, the stimulus checks , the latest is there has now been two rounds of stimulus checks. the latest was for incomes of less than $75,000, and it phases

out with people up to income of $100,000 a year. so it is designed to be more targeted towards lower income and middle income households. it has been very helpful in supporting the economy. for example, this is based on a survey that the census bureau conducts on a regular basis since the pandemic hit, most of those things have gone to things like rent. if you look at the percent of rent payments that are made because of help from the stimulus money, it is very high. so it has been very helpful. having said all that, i here with the caller is saying, and i don't think the stimulus checks are the most effective way to help the most hard-pressed as a result of the pandemic. it is not as targeted as things like unemployment insurance would be, or assistance to renters who owe back rent, or

money for ppp to small businesses that are struggling to survive. so it is not as well targeted, and therefore probably not as effective as it could be. one needs to consider the politics of all of this, and there's the economic policy, and then you have to thing about how i'm i going to get some thing done quickly. the other key is getting something done quickly. if there is political support for it, i'm all for it, but it is not the best form of economic support to the hard-pressed, so i am some pathetic to what the caller is saying -- i am sympathetic to what the color is saying. -- to what the caller is saying. host: "the wall street journal" reporting that unemployment is its worst since 1969. so what should congress do? guest: in the proposal that president biden put forward, he

is talking about more unemployment insurance benefits, extending the programs that have been put in place to help people that have been hit hard by the pandemic. there's additional weeks of support that a been provided. and also increase the amount of unemployment for those receiving it, and he's proposing $400 a week in extra unemployment insurance. you may recall in the c.a.r.e.s. act, the first relief package that was passed almost a year ago now, the additional money was $600 a week, so he is saying we will scale that back a little bit to $400 a week, but that is a big part of the $1.9 trillion package. several hundred billion dollars of that is going to provide that additional unemployment insurance to those hard-pressed unemployed workers. as i mentioned earlier, and as you pointed out, there's still a

very large number of people unemployed or underemployed. host: more details from president biden's plan. one point $9 trillion overall is the price tag. he wants $1400 in direct payments, 1400 dollars a week for unemployment insurance supplement in addition to what states provide, and moratorium on infections -- on evictions, 400 billion dollars to fight coronavirus and open schools, $15 an hour federal minimum wage, expanded paid sick leave for workers, and increased tax credits for families with children. what you think $15 an hour in federal minimum wage would do? guest: there's a lot of controversy and debate about that. i think on net, it would help the workers that receive the benefit, so lower income workers , once you raise a minimum wage, the amount of income that that group receives increases, but it

will cost some jobs, so you raise the wage. if you raise it too high, too fast, and certain parts of the country it becomes prohibitive for employers, and they hire a few people or may lay off workers. so it's got crosswinds. some real positive tailwinds, but some headwinds as well. the net is a positive for lower income households. i think it depends a lot, especially any potential negative impact, depends a lot on exactly how it isn't limited. if it is implement it over a period of time to allow employers end markets to adjust, then i think the negative consequent is a relatively modest. but if you try to raise it too fast, too high, then you've got more of a problem. so a lot depends on the details here and exactly how that men

wage would be increased and over what period of time. host: let's go to richard next in philadelphia, an independent. caller: good morning. how are you doing? my curiosity question is about national investment as it relates to national debt, in taking the crisis aside. one thing is that looking at the debt clock, i can never tell at what point this country is moving at the point where the debt amount, what is that number? that is one of the questions i am asking. what is the number where the debt amount is beyond the national productivity being able to pay for it, since they have to deal with making appropriate national investment? the other question, and relationship who owns the debt, is it true that the largest

percentage of the cap owned -- of the debt owned is by the financial sector in the u.s.? host: ok, we will take those questions, richard. guest: very good questions. just to give you a number, the publicly traded debt to gdp ratio, a measure of the debt load, is closing in on about 100%. that is up about 20% from where it was prior to the pandemic, which was about 20% above where it was prior to the financial crisis. really, between world war ii and before the financial crisis, the debt to gdp ratio was consistently around 40%, 50%. so that gives you context around how much it has increased. i don't think we are at a place, or even close to a place, where

we won't be able to afford that, meaning that investors in that debt, in those bonds that are issued by the treasury to finance the deficits, loose faith that they are going to be paid in a timely way, and you get into signed of the self reinforcing negative cycle. -- into kind of the self reinforcing negative cycle. we are not there yet, just the opposite. interest rates are incredibly low. that is not an issue that we have at this point in time. so it is really not a significant concern that we can't manage the debt loads that we face today as a result of the pandemic. so we can't continue down this path forever. at some point it will become an issue. exactly when, hard to know, and a matter of great debate. so we need to change the

trajectory of this on the other side of the pandemic once we are at full employment, but i think we can feel confident that we have the resources to manage this at this point in time. as i said earlier, i don't really think we have a choice here. if we didn't provide that support, if we didn't borrow that money and use it for unemployed workers and small businesses in the airline industry, the economy would suffer a lot more. the impact on the deficit and debt even greater, and our fiscal problems even bigger. those who are purchasing those treasury bonds to finance all of this, that it's really you and i. yes, financial institutions purchase the debt, so that would be everyone from insurance companies and pension funds, different kinds of mutual funds, asset managers, they are

ultimately buying on the behalf of us, americans who have savings and have been saving their money. they are investing in that treasury debt. also, global institutions by our debt -- global institutions buy our debt as well. in fact, that is one of the most important strengths of the american economy, and that is the debt that we issue, the treasury debt is the safest asset in the world. so if you want safety, if you know you are going to get paid back on time, you invest in u.s. treasury bonds, and that is to our collective benefit because we can borrow these extraordinarily low interest rates. in the rest of the world, they have to pay a higher interest rate over longer periods of time then we do because we are the safest asset on the planet. we are the aaa credit of the

planet. so investors from all over the world by our debt, and that is a good thing. host: tom and el paso, texas, a republican -- tom in el paso, texas, republican. caller: yes, i want to know when you think inflation is going to take off. the amount of debt that is going on right now is so astronomical that there's no way that it can't take off. you know, if i ran my household the way we are running the country and took on the multitudes of debt compared to my income, there is no way that i would have anything that i have right now. i would end up being in a constant cycle of paying back. so i guess i don't understand from a principal level how we are going to pay this back. why don't we just do this? why don't we just have the

government be one dollar short of what we took in in federal taxes the prior year? this way we can just pay for what we need. host: ok, tom. mr. zandi? guest: on inflation, as you know, inflation is very low. it has consistently been below the target the federal reserve set of 2%. 2% is kind of their bogey. it is reasonable, not too high, not too low. we can talk about why. we've been consistently below 2%. we are still well below 2%. i don't think that that is going to rise in a significant way, even back to the 2% target, at least not in a consistent way until the economy is back closer to full employment, until we get those 10 million jobs that we

lost during the pandemic back. we've got a long way to go. even if president biden got his $1.9 trillion package, under my calculations, we don't get back to full employment for another two, two and a half years. so that is a long road. i'm not worried about that. you could even go as far as to say the federal reserve wants higher inflation. they don't one inflation below 2%, so they are working really hard. that is why they are keeping interest rates close to zero, so they can get inflation back to that target. hopefully they succeed, and i think they will. once we are back to full employment, once inflation is back to that 2% target on a consistent basis, then we do need to bid it and we do need to address our long-term fiscal situation, and that means spending restraint, government spending restraint, and it means tax increases. we are going to have to do both.

i will say, to your point about if i ran my household like the federal government did, i would be a financial mess. i will point out that even despite all of the borrowing the federal government has engaged in and the higher debt load, the amount of interest expense on that debt as a percent of government revenue, or any measure of gdp, is very low. that is because of a low interest rate. i am not saying it won't be a problem down the road as interest rates begin to rise. but at this point in time, it is very low and very manageable for most from a fiscal perspective. host: you said congress, this administration would need to raise taxes. who benefited from president trump's 2017 tax cuts, and are you saying their tax cuts need to be raised now? guest: i think it is clear the principal beneficiaries of

president trump's tax cuts back in 2018 were large corporations, the top marginal corporate tax rate under the trump tax cuts come of law that he passed, went from 35% to 25%, so that is a large cut for multinational corporations, like the company i work for, moody's.the high incod the well-to-do, people with high net worth that are wealthy, they are the principal beneficiaries of that tax cut, and that was deficit finance. we went out and borrowed money to effectively cut a check to large corporations and to higher income households. my sense when i say future tax increases, those are the folks that are going to have to shoulder much of the burden, in large part because that is where the money is. that is where the income is.

i don't think the top marginal corporate tax rate should go back to 35%. that would make american companies uncompetitive against many foreign companies, so i don't think that makes a lot of sense. but taking it back from 21% to 28%, i think that is a reasonable proposal, and i think that is what president biden proposed during the campaign. that was part of his build back better agenda during the campaign. for higher income households, same thing. the reduction in top marginal rates, and i think that should be scaled back, that higher income households will need to pay more, because again, that is where the money is, and they are doing quite well. during the pandemic, and i am painting with a broad brush here, but in the pandemic, high income households, high net worth households, wealthy households have navigated the pandemic without any significant

financial pain. they had their jobs. they are receiving good health care. they own their own homes. house prices have risen very strongly because of the record low mortgage rates. stock prices have come ringback. they are at record highs. that is to the beneficiary of those high income households. only half of americans earn any stock, and it is really the top 20% that own stocks of any consequence. lower income households and minority groups have been completely hammered financially as a result of the crisis. they are the people working in those industries i mentioned earlier that have been hammered by all of this. they work in retail, restaurants, recreational activities, the airline industry. they don't own any stock or own very little stock, and the homeownership rates are a lot lower. there health care isn't quite as good. so when we think about the need

to raise future tax revenue, it is going to have to be on the folks that have done well here navigating the pandemic, and that is higher income, well-to-do households. host: mike in california, independent. caller: good morning. i'd like the guest to comment on some lessons from american history. the administration of warren g. harding has been dismissed as being very poor by scholars, principally a poll that was done by american scholar historians in 1948 and was recently updated. warren g. harding was listed last, and calvin coolidge was listed second to last. his predecessor, woodrow wilson, i think number four if i'm not mistaken, very highly.

yet the performance of the economy in those cases tends to reflect, tends to suggest exactly theduring the 1920's, hd coolidge demonstrated extraordinary, they cut the federal budget i believe by 25% or more if i'm not mistaken. whereas wilson expanded the military and expenses of the federal government and left the country in depression. host: so what is your question than? caller: so what are the lessons from that period in history for us today? guest: i know my history very well back to fdr and the great depression.

prior to that, it is a little sketch here. the lesson i have taken from our history since the 1930's depression is that in times of crises, and i would argue that this is a time of crises, the pandemic is a health care crisis and an economic and a global health care and economic crisis, that it is important for the government to be very supportive. they have to have everybody's back, both in terms of fighting the pandemic but also financially paid when i say government, that is us, collectively, -- financially. when i say government, that is us, collectively we are going to -- when we stop doing what we do, the economy will be immeasurably worse.

i have to give lawmakers credit. since the pandemic hit, almost a year ago, just about now year ago in china and then went to europe in february and hit us in march, that lawmakers have done a good job and have stepped up. we have had reasonable debates and it is important to have those debates because it makes for better policy choices. when push comes to shove, they have done what the economy needed and what the american people need and it has been very supportive peer they had our back. -- very supportive. they had our back. the pandemic is a problem everywhere. other parts of the world are struggling within us. europe immediately comes to mind. this is not over and we are still in the crisis and the

government has to continue to provide that support. when i look over the expense of american history, particularly from the great depression, the key lesson i take from that is in times of crisis, it is critical that government steps up and collectively has our back. host: rudy, sun city, california, democratic caller. caller: i would just like to find out, and i am not very good with economics. i grandson has to remind me that two plus two isn't five, but one thing is, does the president have the power to tell the treasury to wipe out the debt, just mark it off? i heard something about the fact of in the obama era and they said no. you are the economist, so you can that me know. guest: anyone who says they are

as humble as you are is probably a smart fellow. that is a great question. no, the president does not have the authority to just extinguish the debt. by the way, we don't want to do that. that would be a big mistake, because we want the ability to continue tomorrow. borrowing for investment is entirely appropriate and is a good thing and we want to be able to continue to do that. we would not be able to do that, certainly at any reasonable interest rate if we decided we were just going to extinguish the debt. here is a little more history. i will go all the way back to alexander hamilton. the genius of alexander hamilton was that he understood that principle. after the revolutionary war, the

issue debt to finance the revolutionary war and that debt was thought of that there is no way we will ever get repaid on that money, so it was being traded in the markets of that day for a couple pennies on the dollar. alexander hamilton said, look, i am going to pay you all back. by doing so, he established the principle that if you invest in the united states of america, your money is good. you will get repaid no matter what. the result has been we have enjoyed the lowest interest rates of any government on the planet for the entire history of american history. that is to our benefit. it helps us finance a trip to the moon. it helped us finance infrastructure, education of our kids and interest rates lower than anyone else on the planet. you can see real life examples of that today there were

countries that tried to extinguish debt by just saying i am not going to pay back. take a look at argentina and what kind of a mess they are in. even if the president had that authority, and the president does not, that would be a particularly bad idea. host: president biden's nominee, janet yellen, is set for a vote in the senate today. it is reported that fed -- former fed chair sailed through. what should be her priorities? guest: let me say first, she is great. she has a wealth of experience as head of the federal reserve, the san francisco fed, and a well-known academic economist. she is right person at the right place at the right time. a bubbly number one is getting that $1.9 trillion package through -- probably number one

is getting that $1.9 trillion package through. the 900 billion dollars package that was passed will run out sometime in march. the economy will need more help to navigate through. she has to figure out a way to convince enough lawmakers to sign on so we get that package in place. that is also critical to addressing the pandemic. a large share of the $1.9 trillion is for combating the pandemic, the vaccine distribution, the testing and tracing, ppe, all the things that we need to have to be able to get this pandemic under control. that has got to be a priority. thinking down the road after the pandemic, her next priority has got to be to get the economy back to full employment. get those 10 million jobs that we lost back and get

unemployment back down to where it was pre-pandemic so that all americans can begin to benefit from the economy and get those folks in the minority groups that have been hammered back up and running they are going to need a lot of help. host: $1.9 trillion -- if the $1.9 trillion is not signed into law, are we headed for a recession? is there a smaller number? guest: first question, will we go back to a recession if no additional money is provided? it will be close. i am not sure. it depends on the pandemic. it depends on how good we are at getting the vaccine out and how quickly we achieve the herd immunity that we need to get to the other side of the pandemic. it depends on this new mutation

of the virus that is more infectious, how rampant it becomes here. it depends, but it will be nip and tuck this spring and early summer if we don't get additional. we need $1.9 trillion to navigate to the other side of a pandemic without going to a recession, probably not. if you got roughly half of that it could get you to the other side without recession. i will say it leaves us in not the most encouraging place on the others the pandemic. we will still have high unemployment and we will still be struggling to get back to full swing. if the biden administration does not get the full $1.9 trillion now, it will need close to that amount of money to get the economy back to full employment in a reasonable period of time over the next two to three years. host: the current fed chair echoes that opinion. this is the wall street journal job market has long recovery ahead says chair powell.

we will go to linda in new york, democratic color -- caller. caller: was president trump's tax cut necessary at the time that was done. i was thought we were in a pretty good place and work heading in the right direction anyway. was it really necessary or would we have been fine without it? guest: no, it wasn't necessary. i think we would have been fine without it. it was expensive, about one point $5 trillion. it was at a time where this was early 2018. the economy was performing well, creating jobs. we were getting back to full employment.

so i don't think it was necessary. not to say that our tax code couldn't do some reform and not to say that lower rates for corporations, particularly given the competitive pressure from businesses overseas, because they have lower tax rates, that makes sense. but it should have been paid for. if we were going to cut taxes over here to make businesses more competitive globally, we would need to raise taxes over here to pay for it. we didn't do that. so the answer is no. it was pretty bad timing, because the economy was close to full employment at that point in time. and when you have deficit financed tax cuts, you create problems with inflation. inflation did start to pick up in late 2018. that was particularly bad decision. it was not helpful.

host:dee in maryland, a republican. caller: regarding the issue of inflation, i pretty much will bet gas will be five dollars by the end of the summer. we have all been here before and we know that will affect goods and services. how long does mr. zandi think the impact will be from higher gas races? thank you. guest: gasoline presses -- prices have picked up off of pandemic low. during the middle of the pandemic almost a year ago, everything shut down, obviously. no one was traveling and going to work. this was globally, so the demand fell and oil prices collapsed.

i can remember one day in trading, i think it was in the late spring or early summer, future oil prices were actually negative, believe it or not. for that to shoe a sense of how low prices got. all that has happened is they have normalized. have fun close to act where they were pre-pandemic, about $50 a barrel of oil and gas prices normalizing. they are off but they are up from incredibly recessionary low levels that we could not expect to continue under any scenario. i don't think this is a particularly concerning effect. it is a sign that the economy is starting to improved. it is probably a positive thing. i don't think i'd be to

concerned about that at this point. i would say one other thing about this though, once we do get to the other side of the pandemic and things start to pick up, and i think they will on the other side of the pandemic, that we might see a pickup in demand for oil that the gasoline prices will see a bit of a spike. it will be temporary, but a bit of a spike so that is one possibility. i am not concerned about the level of oil prices are gasoline prices at this point. host: you know that the record stock market throughout 2020 and responding now to the pandemic, white have we seen rallies on wall street? guest: a few reasons. one is that the lower interest rates, when interest rates are low, investors can't get any money by putting money into a checking account or savings account. right now you are getting nothing on that money.

so there is an incentive to invest in other things, stocks are obvious. that has been a key part of what has gone on. the stock market is a market for winning companies. i don't think it is a reflection of the broader companies. companies that are traded are those that are doing very well. it is really one dozen or two dozen companies that have done very well that are driving the overall stock races you know the names, google, facebook, microsoft, netflix. and then there are a couple stocks that have really taken off your here is a third reason is speculation is starting to creep into the market. tesla might be a good poster child for that. people are coming in and buying that stock with the idea they can sell the stock at a higher price before that price

declines. it is as risky as it sounds. ultimately not a winning strategy. but at times, the stock market, like any other archaic, can turn speculative. i mention one other factor, which is what we need and it is about the discussion around inflation. one result of the pandemic has been to concentrate market share and fewer and fewer companies -- in fewer and fewer companies. a lot of mom-and-pop companies have failed. they're already under pressure because of online competition, but they got eve issa rae to buy the pandemic. publicly -- they got eve issa rae did -- eviscerated due to the pandemic.

they are going to raise prices more aggressively on the other side. investors know this and they are the stock. it is not just one factor. host: we are talking with chief economist mark zandi. chris and indianapolis, republican. -- chris in in the annapolis, republican. caller: -- chris in indianapolis , the republican. caller: how do you think about the chinese communist party and dealing with mr. president, joe biden, money. guest: i don't think there is any evidence of that. i don't think that is an issue. i will say more broadly that china is a broader concern with

regard to trade policies and protection of intellectual property and cybersecurity. it is important for the biden administration to continue to confront china to try to ensure they change their behavior. so for example, president trump raised tariffs on china in an effort to do this. and i suspect president biden will use those tariffs as leverage to try to get the chinese to change the things they think they are doing that are counterproductive for the global economy. the biden administration will confront china in a different way than president trump president trump was going it alone. it was america beat china. i think the biden administration will engage the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is as concerned as we are chinese haiti are and do multilateral action through multilateral -- as we are.

i think the biden administration will do multilateral action to multilateral agencies. you may think the trade deal through nations excluded china because of the chinese not playing fair and chinese would not be allowed into this pretrade arrangement unless they did. the united states, under president obama, was ready to go into ttp but president trump decided not to do that. i think that was a mistake. i don't know what hazard biden has in mind, but hopefully down the road can take another look at that and maybe some adjustments to satisfy the concerns around labor laws and environmental laws. that would be another good way to confront china because of their behavior. i think some of the things you

just mentioned, i don't think there's any evidence of that. host: we will go to janet in las vegas, independent. caller: good morning. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: my question is with regard to cic in the new bill they have $350 billion -- is in with regard to the new bill. i see they have $350 billion for states. in nevada we have high unemployment and high positivity rate. we have a situation where the unemployment situation is -- the un-employment system is overburdened and antiquated. claims go into pending status and go unaddressed for months and months. i know this is occurring in states other than nevada as well. here we had a claim for the gig

workers and they won a judgment but still have not been paid as of november. they had to go in and demand payment. i think they got most of that cleared up. but the overall issue still exists. if there is an error in the claim by the claimant or the state employee or whatever, the claim goes into pending and is there for months on end. guest: you make an excellent point. the unemployment insurance agencies are in a mess. some states are good at managing the program here at some states are just miserable at it. of course the pandemic made very clear who was not good at this. certainly screaming out for reform. the system was put in place back

during the great depression and has not undergone any meaningful change since then. the computer systems are antiquated. difficult to implement change with regard to the pua program for gig workers. that was put in place during the pandemic and hard to implement. even now with him lamenting the benefits that were passed under the $900 billion package, getting that in place has been very painful to watch across the country. i agree with you. i don't think any of the $350 billion in the $1.9 trillion package owing to state and local governments is explicitly marked for that program. i do think this is something we should address and reform is absolutely necessary here. it is an incredibly inefficient system we rely on in times like these to help people out here we need to get much better at it.

generally when we come out of crises, we make reforms and change things and generally for the better, hopefully this program will be one of the things we focus on and change. host: what bubbles, if any, do you see in the economy? guest: i don't see any bubbles that rise to the level of existential threat to the economy. i think there are markets that are overvalued and valuation is an issue. we talked about the stock market as a case in point. there may be individual stock we mark argue that there is speculation a bubble is developing i don't think the entire market. the single-family housing markets have been juiced up, ironically, during the pandemic. some markets feel like they are getting overvalued, particularly

markets that have benefited from the work where you have people from urban centers moving out to smaller suburbs and cities. this market come one that feels very speculative to me, i don't know if i would say is a bubble but headed in that direction is the cryptocurrency markets, bitcoin, ethereum. that is a vehicle for speculation and prices have risen there quite strongly. that might be a potential area with some issue. certainly not bubble in the way that we would call the housing market back in 2006 prior to the financial crisis. i don't see anything like that. host: mark zandi, chief economist, thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you, greta. host: come back again. guest: sure thing. host: we will turn our attention

to impeachment. the article of impeachment will be brought to the senate today, kicking off proceedings that will begin the week of february 8. should the senate seat with the impeachment trial -- proceed the impeachment trial against the former president. the numbers are on your screen. dial in. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television company in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these telephone -- a television companies that bring you c-span as a public service. >> tonight on the communicators, and author discusses her book

which chronicles the founding of instagram and the impact the app has had on the tech industry and society. >> you have to think instagram reflects all of these celebrities around the world as well and all of the brands c-span i'm sure has an instagram, bloomberg has an instagram. it is all of these accounts that are doing instagram. but there are also homegrown people who otherwise may beat wouldn't have a voice who are building audiences without having to go through the normal gatekeepers. becoming a comedian, becoming a fitness instructor without having to work and an office. this is a place where people can just demonstrate what they are good at and build a following and eventually become famous. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the communicators and c-span2.

>> listen to c-span's podcast the weekly. this week the former chief of staff under george h w bush and former deputy chief of staff in the george w. bush administration shares advice for biden chief of staff. >> i told him to pay attention to decisions that are being made by the president. you don't want the president making just government decisions. the president should be making presidential decisions not every government decision. he will be blamed for every government decision but the president's precious time should be making presidential decisions and getting ready to make tough presidential decisions rather than making government decisions . you want to make sure people who are making government decisions are making them the right way. >> from the weekly, where you get your podcast. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: should the senate proceed with the impeachment trial against former president trump. that is our question. begin dialing in now with your thoughts. you can text us with their first name, city, and state. -- with your first name, city, and state. here is the new majority leader, chuck schumer of new york, democrat, talking about the impending trial. >> will conduct a second impeachment trial for donald trump. i have been speaking to the republican leader about the timing and duration of the trial. make no mistake, it trial will be held in the united states senate and there will be a vote whether to convict the president. i have spoken to speaker pelosi, who informed me that the articles will be delivered to the senate on monday.

i have heard some of my republican colleagues argue that this trial would be unconstitutional because donald trump trump is no longer in office. an argument that has been roundly repudiated, debunked by hundreds of constitutional scholars, left, right, and center and defies basic common sense. it makes no sense whatsoever that a president or any official could commit a crime against our country and then be permitted to resign so as to avoid accountability and a vote to disbar them for future office. it makes no sense. regardless, the purveyors of this unusual argument are trying to delay the inevitable. the fact is the house will deliver the article of impeachment to the senate. the senate will conduct a trial of the impeachment of donald trump. it will be a full trial. it will be a fair trial. but make no mistake, there will be a trial and when that trial

ends, senators will have to decide if they believe donald john trump incited the insurrection against the united states. host: the democratic leader from last friday about the upcoming impeachment trial. this headline, the impeachment trial and could not knock the a plan of course we are asking you if the senate should proceed. here is the minority leader mitch mcconnell responding to the democratic leader last friday. senator mcconnell: yesterday i shared a proposal for the pretrial steps for the impeachment trial. it appears to be headed our way. by senate rules, if the article arrives, we have to start a trial right then. this impeachment began with an unprecedentedly fast pace in the

house. it cannot be an insufficient senate process that denies former president trump's due process damages the senate or the presidency itself. senate republicans believe we need a full and fair process where the former president can mount a defense and the senate can properly consider the factual, legal, and constitutional questions at stake. for that reason, we suggest the house transmit this article next thursday and that is apparently going to meet next monday and the answer and the pretrial brief have been suggested that we do on february 4 and the former pretrial brief suggested on february 11. that timeline would've provided the senate more time before we step up fully into the unknown of a trial, which would've been

a substantial benefit to the incoming administration and allow them to get more of their cabinet confirmed, which we are cooperating as best as we can to expedite. host: the republican leader from last week. the house of representatives will send over this article of impeachment tonight around 7:00 p.m. eastern time. an independent, should they proceed? caller: good morning, and thank you c-span. i would like to send prayers to all of our troops protecting us home and abroad. i think that trump has allowed the pettiness that he has embodied to seep into the rest of us and now pettiness is going to be the market we stand on. -- the mark that we stand on. i don't think they should go

through it they should wait until his taxes are released. mitch mcconnell said this is dwindling the chances of joe biden to get his confirmations of his cabinet, and that is more important. we need help. businesses need help. kids need to get back to school. this is in the weight right now. democrats need to understand that, we have to move forward and leave the pettiness alone. trump will get his. he can't run away from it. so it is going to come to him. we don't have to worry about him right now. we have more pressing issues. host: james in albuquerque, new mexico, democratic caller. caller: there is one thing that is totally being missed and i would like it to be addressed.

we have seen a lot of people storming the capitol that had not the pair for neil young on. we saw people marching in north carolina and why are there congressman who are defending this when it could lead us into the same thing that happened in nazi germany the concentration camps there and then the retribution and firestorm which entirely destroyed their cities. host: james, answer the question -- should there be a senate trial? caller: yes there should be a senate trial and the congresspeople who objected should be ejected from congress, plain and simple. host: sandra, tampa, florida, republican. caller: i am horrified by what i saw.

i watched the president stand and watch the violence on a television set while his family danced. if we do not --i know we have a lot to do with covid and everything. if we do not address this and make it absolutely clear this is wrong to stand and watch at your directive watching violence come to the capitol police who are doing their job, and it set a bad precedent. 50 states were on alert for capitals during the inaugurations because we are dreading the next shoe that's going to fall from these violent people come at the president's directive. someone has to tell him it is not ok. our founding fathers put a lot

of things down that the foresight was amazing. this wasn't even on their radar to cover it. now we have to. host:>> as well as the in citatn

towards the insurrection that led to the attack on the capital calls for a trial. if we are going to have unity in our country, it is important to recognize the need for accountability, truth, justice. there will be a trial and i hope it goes as quickly as possible that is something for the council on both sides. met romney on -- host: mitt romney on fox. this is how it is going to work. the house of representatives will bring over the article of impeachment tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. around that time, go to

c-span.org for details on coverage. on tuesday is the swearing in of the senators into the core of impeachment and issuance of summons to the former president. tuesday is the due date for the president's answer to the article of impeachment and the due date for the pretrial brief. on tuesday, the due date for the pretrial rebuttal in the trial can begin. john in sherman oaks, california, republican p what do you say? -- republican. what do you say? caller: i am a little confused. i thought they must hold a trial. i didn't believe it was an option that they couldn't. i thought they simply had to. host: what do you think should be the outcome of the trial? what do you think senators should do? caller: i don't think they are

going to win. i don't think they should have impeached him in the first pillai's -- first place. president biden is out there talking about unity and he is making it sound like he has no choice and he is saying this is nancy pelosi's deal. he is the leader of the democratic party and i don't think his call for unity, nobody is going to pay attention with that anymore if he allows them to go ahead. host: gale in louisiana, independent. caller: hello. we have to try and hopefully convict donald trump because he is still a threat to the republic. he is a terribly dangerous individual. that's it. host: jaclyn and -- jacqueline

in connecticut, democratic caller. caller: nobody is above the law. host: also on fox news sunday was marco rubio, the florida senator. he also talked about impeachment with fox news host chris wallace and was asked about moving forward. here is what he had to say. >> you have, strongly against the idea of holding this impeachment trial, now it is going to happen. what do you think the rule should be about the length of the trial and whether or not to allow witnesses to be called? sen. burr: -- sen. rubio: i think it is stupid. it is like pouring gas on a fire. richard nixon who had clearly

committed crimes, in hindsight i think we all agree that president ford's pardon was important and helped us to move forward. in terms of the rules, the president is entitled to due process and a defense and entitled to present testimony and evidence. the house doesn't have much of a record of witnesses because state frankly rammed it through very quickly. fairness is important matter who it is. i think this is going to be very bad for the country. it is going to keep us focused on important thing -- keep us from focusing on important things and will stir it up and make it harder to get things done moving forward. host: do you agree or disagree? what are your thoughts on the impeachment? caller: i think you should have impeachment and i think he should be charged criminally against him. think of the dollars that have been spent because of that.

that is how i feel. he should be tried, convicted, and should be charged with criminal charges. host: in colorado, a democratic caller caller: -- caller. caller: i think he should be charged. the reason we have him is because they hate government. ever since reagan, he said the nine most dangerous words are from -- are, i am from the government and i am here to help. they hate government. hence, they don't know how to govern. they are authoritarians and they need violence to thrive. hence, he has a cold -- a cult.

they are dead set against holding him accountable. it is like two different types of justice. one for white people and another one for colored people. it is disgraceful. host: sarah huckabee sanders, former press secretary for president trump, announced on twitter she is running for governor. here it is. sarah: we will succeed but only if we hold the line against the attacks on our freedom and push forward with fresh ideas under a new generation of leadership. it will be a long hard fight. here is the truth, as white house press secretary, i never had to worry about the far left, cnn, or the new york times defining me, because i have a creator who has already done that. i am a christian, wife, and mom.

my opponent will do everything in their power to destroy me, but i will not apologize for who i am or who i am fighting for. i am fighting for you. i will not retreat. i will not surrender. i will not bow down, not now, not ever. as governor i will defend our freedoms and lead with heart. i hope you will stand with me by going to sarah for governor.com to join our movement. thank you. may god bless america and may god bless the great state of arkansas. host: sarah huckabee sanders following in her father's footsteps running for governor for the state of arkansas. joe in quincy, massachusetts, democratic caller. we are talking about the senate proceedings on impeachment against president trump and what do you think? caller: i honestly don't think

either party can take the higher moral ground. there are problems in both parties with that. i believe you can't have unity without justice. we should proceed with the impeachment. couple things i notice about the history of the impeachment of the president is this is the second time he is being impeached. the first time it was for pressuring the leader of ukraine for publicly trying to get him to discredit joe biden before the election and he was withholding $800 million in u.s. aid. i watched the trial. i watched the witnesses come forward and prove the fact that trump was threatening the ukraine leadership. it went to the senate and was rejected by a senate george t. they never called witnesses, even though they had the opportunity -- by a senate, they

never called witnesses even though they had the opportunity. he fired the head of the postal service and replaced him with a guy who proceeded to dismantle the postal service at a time they were going to be handling more mail because the covid related votes than ever before. of course he was brought before a congressional hearing and he stopped. trump continued to spread un-confounded lies that the election was fixed. he incited these people on the right for three months prior and three months after. we finally had the insurrection. it was an insurrection of trump's doing. he needs to be impeached, which means he won't be able to run for president again. i don't think that is such a big deal and we cannot survive another four years of trump. host: jake is a republican in new hampshire. what do you think? caller: there should not be a

trial. it is a total disgrace. i am 81 years old and i have never seen this kind of a mess in the united states in my lifetime. if they are going to have a trial, maybe go in and look at congress and the senators that spoke out for violence against any republican supporter and they should be thrown out of congress immediately. they are not any better than donald trump. god bless my country. i hope it gets better. host: more calls coming up. a white house reporter joining us with the hill newspaper. what is on resident biden's agenda this week? guest: president biden is set to start the second week of his

presidency similar to the first week, which is signing a lot of executive actions to implement key items that he wants to get rolling right away as well as using executive action to roll back a lot of trump administration policies. today we are expecting to see him sign an executive order on strengthening requirements for federal agencies and the rest of the week we will see, each day has a theme. tomorrow is supposed to be equity. we expect to see orders around police reform and policing. the day after that is focused on climate. expect him to implement additional policies addressing the climate crisis. after that, he will focus on health care, strengthen the aca and rollback trump administration policies. he will close out the week focusing on immigration. he is expected to sign in order directing focus on family

reunification and other items as well focused on reversing trump administration policies on immigration. he has that going. of course a lot of eyes will be on capitol hill and whether that can be hugs on negotiations on a relief package. host: in addition -- can be progress on negotiations on a relief act which. host: when you think about the response to the covid pandemic? guest: that will be top of mind for a lot of people. the biden administration dating back to the campaign, the pandemic has been priority a, b, and c for them. they like to talk about how it is their main focus. we will continue to hear efforts to smooth out the vaccine and to try to reach the goal of one million shots per day, which we've already hit that in recent days as they came into office. i think there will be a lot of

focus on whether they are willing to up the ante and increase that. i imagine focused on vaccine distribution will continue to be front and center in addition to the economic aspect, the relief aspect. host: ex-white house addresses how they will push for and move forward on their agenda while there is an impeachment trial on capitol hill? guest: that has been the thing with the beginning of the biden administration, the impeachment is casting a shadow. president biden and his aides have been adamant they would like to see the senate, to use a cliche, walk and to gum at the same time. they are hoping they can simultaneously focus on moving the impeachment trial along as well as confirming nominees for the new administration,

negotiating a relief package, reviewing legislation. biden and his team have been optimistic that the senate will be able to balance those. it sounds like the senate trial for former trump is not owing to start until next month now. -- is not going to start until next month now. i think you will see a push to get nominations confirmed and get moving on the relief package and get key items out of the way before the trial starts in earnest. host: is the white house coordinating with democratic on the impeachment proceedings? guest: that is a good question president biden and the press secretary have been speaking to the line that this is congress' role whenever they are asked about whether president biden has an opinion on president trump's fate in the senate

trial, they always differ to the senate leaders and congressional leaders and say, that is their lane and we will let them do their duty in that respect. behind the scenes, there has been talk and some coordination. obviously last week we saw joe biden hint he would be ok waiting to have the trial until february so he can get more nominees confirmed. that is a sign there is some coordination to some extent just so the two sides are comfortable with when the trial is happening and getting some of the new president's agenda accomplished. host: viewers can follow his reporting on the white house. go to the hill.com and follow him on twitter. thank you for the update. guest: thank you. host: jason in falls church, independent peer what do you think about impeachment on capitol hill. -- independent.

what do you think about impeachment on capitol hill? caller: the last year he has been attacking the election process leading up to the fact that he can't possibly lose and then when he loses he incites a rebellion. he had a possibility to step in and stop it. he didn't. in doing that, he is reaching that level that is required to impeach a president and i don't think they should step away. if the republican party is going to be the party of accountability, they need to self assess the actions of their party and what should be done when something like this happens. i think it is a sad state when you have all the political opportunists stepping into say,

he promotes his people and take over for him and carry on. it is also said if that is what they are trying to do. i definitely think he should be impeached for this. i don't think there is much else that could rise to the level of being impeached other than what he did. host: politico is reporting the national guard presence on capitol hill will remain during the senate impeachment trial. linda in oklahoma, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the senate should proceed with the impeachment trial, because trump needs to be held accountable for what he did. even as important, i think the senate should be -- should hold to write -- hold to right the

republicans for what trump did. there are so many people who are willing to sweep it under the rug. and there are people like my husband who is a republican, who doesn't seem to know -- for example, we have a publican complement running and he doesn't know where he stands on him. i think all the clarity we can get about this helps us all be more informed. host: mike in indiana, republican. caller: about this impeachment, i was just thinking, if they try to impeach trump they are going to ask him and his suppose it insurgent i a were there and what was it about. if they have a hearing, it will have to come out on fraud. it was all about voter fraud. they are going to have to prove there was no fraud. if they can't, there may be as

much proof. i don't think it is going to happen. host: john in south dakota sends us this text saying, the impeachment is a continuation of the biden administration's wrecking ball that will usher in socialism and world dominance by china. in california, independent. caller: my question is that i wanted to know that the impeachment, is it going to go through? hello? host: we are listening. you are wondering if it is going to go through? caller: yes, since donald trump took office in 2016, and he

misused his office and they tried to impeach him. this is the second impeachment and i think the capital -- the stuff at the capitol. host: impeachment managers tonight will walk over the article of impeachment and the senate is slated to begin the trial february 8, the week of february 8. we will go to keith in north carolina, republican. caller: hello. the thing -- the problem i have with this is one, nobody on the republican side has condoned the violence. he didn't call for violence.

he told everybody to go down and peaceful protest and cheer on. if you look at the timeline of when his speech was to when this happened, those people were really not the ones who were there. two, he was the one who called the national guard according to cnn. three, there were antifa members in there, because cnn interviewed one of them and they said they were just a photographer, but it came out the guy was charged. host: the los angeles times reporting, gop is split on impeachment trial. you can read more about where republicans in the senate stand. victor, and stillwater, oklahoma, democratic caller. what do you think? caller: i certainly think he should be impeached because he led these people and decided to

head down there and he said he would march down there with him. the man before said the republican party should certainly want him impeached because you will be a thorn in their side forever if they don't do something from keeping him from being able to hold office. we should take care of it now and we won't have to live with his lies and insurrection in the future. host: here is a tweet from a viewer, the trial must go on, if nothing else but the historical record. this is for history's sake. michael in new york, independent. what do you think? caller: i personally don't think we should that's my opinion. butive a couple of questions we all need to ask. first, is it justice or

retribution? second, does the evidence rise to the level of impeachment? third, will it take away from biden's administration being effective and the congress from doing the business of the people? fourth, how much will it cost in time and money? and fifth, maybe better to move on, because he'll probably be indicted on other issues. host: all right, michael use thoughts in new york. diane in shenandoah, pennsylvania. diane, good morning to you. you're our last call. go ahead. caller: hi, good morning. no, actually, i don't think he should be impeached. host: ok. and why not? caller: he didn't incite the violence. if you look at his speech, as he was speaking, they were already marching. and if he's going to be impeached, then i think he should also go after pelosi. you should go after maxine waters, and a lot of people on the democratic side, because they incited a lot of violence

on the democratic side. host: ok. diane in pennsylvania. we will leave it there for now. more on impeachment coming up this week. we'll be back here tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. eastern time. please tune in then. enjoy the rest of your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] >> you're watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we're brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service.