coming up today, attorney general merrick farland testifies on the president's 2022 budget request for the justice department at a house appropriations subcommittee hearing. that's live just after 10 eastern on c-span following a brief house pro forma session then at 2 p.m. come a house homeland security subcommittee looks at ways to address workplace challenges for tsa personnel. at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span2, supreme court hears oral argument on whether low-level crack cocaine offenders are entitled to a reduced sentence under the 2018 first step act and that in income another hearing on the president's 2022 budget request with officials from the national guard and military reserves. >> coming up in one hour, the center for american progress on the tax foundation on the biden administration's goals to change

text policy in order to pay for a proposed program. at 9:20 a.m., harvard institute of all tics pulling director -- polling director on the recent poll of young voters. "washington journal" his next. ♪ host: welcome to washington journal for may 4. merrick garland -- that hearing starts after 10:00. you can view it on c-span. yesterday in virginia president i did and the first -- president biden and the first lady spoke about offering community college for free. what do you think of the federal government paying for two years of community college? you can call and let us know.

if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. perhaps you are in community college and would like to give your perspective. you can do that at (202) 748-8002. the daily press -- hampton roads virginia is where the president and first lady were yesterday talking about various aspect of education proposals but focusing on community college. dr. jill biden talked up the proposal for community college. here is a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> our schools accept everyone

and offer classes that are flexible so students do not need to choose between work and school. they train for real world jobs. they tailored to the communities they serve. are they provide a strong foundation for those students who want to go on to a four-year degree. community college graduates provide more security for their families. they invest in their local schools and businesses and they bring needed skills to our workforce, helping us meet the challenges of the 20 century. that is why we need -- the 21st century. that is why we need to free years of community college. host: marv that available on the website -- more of that available on the website.

this is a proposal by the biden administration. what do you think? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. until we take calls, we are joined on zoom by the editor of inside higher education to talk about this proposal from the biden administration. good morning to you. how exactly would it work? caller: -- guest: sen. warren: a lot of the-- guest: a lot of the details are not clear, but biden is proposing billions for other higher education programs. host: that is the dollar figure. what is the why behind it? guest: they can point to real

success for community college. tennessee did it by themselves and they have seen more students coming into community college and fewer students needing remediation because of other changes they have made. the belief is even if students are told " you can get financial aid, it will all work out," that is true but it is not the same as saying it is free. host: how much would that pay for at a degree and a minute a college -- at a community college? guest: it covers tuition. it is difficult to determine the full cost to a student.

community college is typically less expensive than a four-year but they cost varies widely. host: i know you said specifics were not available just yet, but would this just apply to new students -- just apply to new students? guest: it is not clear. host: you probably know this more than most covering this issue, compared to a four-year private college, community college is coming in at 3770 dollars. is community college cost prohibitive for a lot of people or do many people take advantage of it before going on to a four-year degree? guest: it is cost prohibitive to many students. the people biden wants to target

are very poor people. they do not necessarily have $3770, and they do not believe they will get financial aid, even if they do. host: it would have to meet some sort of, flying -- guest: biden is proposing this for everyone. host: is it just this part that deals with community college or do other aspects of the planned that deal with that overall? guest: president biden is proposing $80 billion for pell grants. that is huge. he has also proposing $62 billion for efforts to increase graduation and retention rates at colleges and universities. that would affect community colleges.

he has also proposing $39 billion for historically black colleges and tribal colleges for students to go there. host: all things being politics with these proposals, what is the reception amongst democrats and republicans on capitol hill? guest: among democrats it is very good, among republicans it is very chilly. some republicans are behind the pell grant proposal. some are behind the proposal on graduation rates. generally, republicans are not warm to free community college. host: does this apply to trade schools or those type of institutions that teach a skill? guest: yes. community colleges teach a skill. many public trade schools would be in the program. it is a confusing term, but many

go to community college to learn a skill. host: scott gestic is the editor of -- scott is the editor of inside higher education. he is talking to us about the proposal from the biden administration. to this idea of the federal government paying for two years of community college, is this something you support or not? if you do, call (202) 748-8000. if you do not, call (202) 748-8001. if you attend a community college and you would like to give us your opinion, call (202) 748-8002. carl starts us off this morning in oxford, massachusetts. he supports this idea. tell us why. caller: i am 73, and i would

rather see our tax money go towards education. i would rather see? towards education then the bloated military budget and bailing out big businesses. young people today need help. they are our future. we should do everything we can to help them along. host: when you said it was a half measure, what did you mean by that? caller: we can afford to pay for state college, four-year college. we can do that. host: finish your thought, sir. caller: i basically done --i'm basically done. host: woodbridge, virginia, tony.

caller: i agree. i think it is time to help people get some education. we bailed out big companies. what did they do with the money? put it back in the stock market, and that was supposed to help us get jobs! but it did not help. at least with community college, you will get people who cannot afford school to go to school and get a degree and in the future the economy will get better. this is a good time to give people who do not have much money some education. host: forbes contributor preston cooper writes on the forbes website " when it comes to this proposal from the biden -- " free community college solves a problem that does not exist.

community college is still affordable. it will not solve the problems that afflict this part of the higher education system, such as low competence -- low completion rates and high student loan defaults. taxpayers should wonder what exactly they are getting for biden's proposed 12 figure investment in community colleges and demand better." let's hear from john in maryland on our yes line. caller: good morning, c-span. my comment and my suggestion is, my prerequisite i am suggesting for the community college entrance is the student must have at least a c average completing his senior year.

my question is, what does the tuition apply to? is it full-time tuition? is it for one class? for trade school? host: you said a c average -- why that requirement in your mind? caller: in my mind, you have to show that you can do the work, study, have the aptitude, have the ability and not just go there and have fun. i went to prince georges community college. it is an excellent school. i did not get my degree, however my brother went to maryland and graduated as a physician. host: that was john. your community college experience, how would you rate it? caller: excellent.

my major was computer science and this was many a decade ago in the 90's. i loved community college. some people say it is the 13th grade, but it is also what you make of it as well. i am sure you have a bachelors degree or more and i am sure you loved college as well. host: that is john in maryland giving his perspective. for those of you who have attended community college, we have given you a line. that is (202) 748-8002 if you attended community college. when it comes to facts about community college, the american association for that group says this -- 1044 community colleges currently in the united states.

4.4 million part-time students attending those colleges. 44% of those are white, 27% are hispanic and had the average age of that student for community college is 28 years old. joel in illinois, belleville, attending community college, you are up next, hi. caller: i recently graduated from the southern southwestern illinois community college. i liked it. i thought it was worth it. it seemed pretty affordable to me. my employer picked up most of the bill. i already have an undergrad and a masters degree, but i got those several years ago.

host: what were you studying at the community college? caller: computers -- cybersecurity and networking. host: what forced you to go back? [laughter] caller: well, i started studying computers and i really did not have any formal background in them. [laughter] caller: this may sound silly, but the college is right here. i stopped in to see what they had and they offered a degree in cybersecurity, so i started taking classes. it was actually by accident! my employer, when i first hit town, suggested i take a course there in lennix. i took a course, then two

courses and degree from there. host: what do you think about the government picking up the first two years for college community students? caller: a mind is a terrible thing to waste, so i think it is a great idea. i have a couple nieces and nephews that went to school. student loans are staggering. somebody wrote an op-ed piece about it would not do anything for student loan. i think the student loan issue is the main issue. host: ok. caller: i cannot believe how costly it is to get a four year degree these days. host: you can do the same if you call (202) 748-8002. someone who says no to this proposal in ohio, this is ted. caller: you say should government pay for two years --

the government does not pay for it. the taxpayers pay for it. if biden wants to support something like this, tell him to pay it out of his own pocket. host: why are you against the idea of paying for it? [laughter] caller: our taxes already pay for a lot of college! dating back to the 70's, when i started at cleveland state university, the government paid for a good portion of that tuition. host: ok. why not give those who would enter the system that chance? caller: it is out there. donations, left and right. it is out there. host: ted in cleveland, ohio giving his thoughts this morning.

another organization weighing in on this idea is the wall street journal editorial board, writing about the education prospects of the american family plan. " the progressive hits keep coming from the biden administration. the latest is the $1.8 trillion american families plan. it is more accurate to call this the plan to make the middle class dependent on government from cradle to grave. we would call the price tag breathtaking, but by now what is another $2 trillion?" carol on facebook says we need more people pursuing a dream. " every time americans have

invested in the brainpower of america, we win." " here in chicago, it works good and it should go nationwide!" " yes on this community college idea. i went to a community college and gained so much confidence. they had support groups which helped. it was a very important time for me." another person who says yes to this idea, james in reston, virginia. caller: good morning. i think it should be something the government should do because i think we spend so much money on trying to build jails and all these other institutions to house people, but if more people are educated, if people invest in the generation, we can have a

more educated future for our children. host: what would you say for those who would take advantage of this plan should it become a real thing, versus those who pay for college out of pocket? host: like another caller said, i think a c average would be kind of the maker break where you basically show -- make or break where you basically show that you are interested in going to college. the higher you grade, the more help you should get. host: jean from our facebook page said " if students got loans elsewhere, the price of college would go way down. long answer short answer, no" " community college seniors can earn a two year degree in a variety of professions."

we have gotten a lot of people feeding us ideas on twitter. from denise in raleigh, north carolina, who says no, go ahead. caller: the reason i am saying no is because what will happen, the students that make a's and b's, they will be given first preference, so why go straight into a four-year college when you can go into a two-year college and get two years free and then transfer all those credits into a four-year college? so students now going into, they are going to end up having --

not being able to compete with the students who are more serious about education. i am retired now from the educational arena. that is why i am saying no. i think we should leave it alone . right now community colleges affordable. host: denise there in raleigh, north carolina. we showed you this before -- a private four year anniversary on average is 30,000 doubt -- 37,000 dollars. public in-state college, $10,000

560 -- $10,560. the biden administration would like to see under the american families plan, the first two years at community college being picked up. you heard from the first lady on this. here is the president in virginia on how he wants to pay for this proposal. [video clip] >> i plan on giving tax breaks to the working class folks and making everybody pay their fair share. here is an example -- if you ask the top 1% to pay the same tax rate they paid in 2001 when george bush was president, that would generate $13 billion a year. that is enough to take around

$11 billion and provide two years of community college free to every american. what is fair? to be able -- just think about it in terms of what is better for america, not democrat, republican -- what will grow america more? what will make us more competitive? stronger? what will make us better educated? four folks at home, i would -- for folks at home, would you like to give the wealthy more tax cuts or give every american the ability to earn a degree on their way to four years of school? host: you can see more of that event on our website at c-span.org. joey word from facebook, saying

" it is not in the constitution. it is said people think the government should pay -- it is sad people think the government should pay for everything we do. the taxpayers are on the hook and about 48% of people do not pay taxes." " we should not be considering giving free college until the national debt is paid off." " how about trade schools? i would rather my taxes go to something more useful than liberal arts." william, what do you think of this proposal? caller: i think it is a brilliant idea. i am a product of malcolm x college. but a little over a decade ago. i think it provides individual opportunity they would have

never had. trade schools are a component of that as well -- correct me if i'm wrong. host: it is a part of that, yeah. why do you think the government should pick up the tab that? caller: i think they should. the government -- the government has a responsibility to take care of their citizens in need. they should pay for tuition. in terms of individual see averages -- c averages competing with students, i disagree with the woman. i think there is room for students to enroll in community college. host: let's hear from another william, this one in wadley, georgia.

he says yes to this proposal. caller: hello. i think it is an excellent idea. i cannot believe the selfishness of people who say no. anyway, i went through the cedar program. i got in the last year before reagan canceled the program. i had a 40 year career. i retired. it is a win-win. if we had all the young people by now, we may have already had acre for cancer 00 a -- had a cure for cancer! it is a win-win. it is worth the investment, in my opinion. i had an excellent career. host: that is william there in

georgia. this is from clinton, pennsylvania. ray joining us. he says no to this idea. caller: i say absolutely not. this country was not made like that. my dad came from europe. you come here, you do not get on the freebie ride. they really go off the deep end -- the sea averag -- the c average? if you do not come out of high school making a's, you should not go to college. number two, i went to community college because i was drafted in the army. i did not get the full two years, but i got a job as a policeman, and it helped me out in that job there.

these people want something free, go serve your country first. do something for the country first instead of having your hand out like that individual from illinois there. people deserve if they cannot afford it? i was working on farms when i was 14 years old pitching hay. go to work for what you get, and you will learn to appreciate what you have. this garbage what we are doing now, now we have the illegals coming in and they put them on welfare. host: ray talking about his opposition to this idea there in pennsylvania. we will carry on until 8:00. if you want to give your thoughts on this idea by the biden administration to provide two years of immunity college, you can call the lines, (202) 748-8000 to say yes to this idea.

(202) 748-8001, you can say no to it. and if you attended community college, (202) 748-8002. a recent discussion on community college says this in part -- " spring undergraduate enrollment is down compared to this time last year based on research a steeper decline in undergraduate and romantic that occurred in 2020, the numbers are even more alarming at community colleges. the majority of community college students are older adults. the possibilities of work, childcare and school are too much to handle. you can read about that too. from lincoln, nebraska, we will hear from ann.

caller: i attended community college myself and got a head start when i could not get the courses that i needed at the university. some grandkids, different ones, some of them have taken trades. they have taken welding and still doing bad as a profession. different electricians and jobs that i think are marvelous things that somata people do not have practical things to do. one of my grandkids went off to tennessee and she got her first year free and she just finished her third year at the university. it will mean that she has way less money that she owes, which

people have been strapped with money that they owe for years and years. host: why do you think the federal government should help with this? caller: the government is us. this separation between government and people is totally artificial. we are the people paying in. the people who are paying the most into the federal government are the middle-class people, not the upper-class people who are finding 50 ways to dodge it. some of that money needs to be used for practical purposes, but education helps everybody. we make better decisions. it ups the quality of life for everyone. host: that is ann, lincoln,

nebraska. washington, d.c., we will hear from dee. caller: good morning. i currently work in the education field, having earned traditional bachelors and masters degrees by 26. i would have been grateful to attend community college based on the immediate utility of the knowledge you gain. this is a national imperative. according to the cia world factbook, the literacy rate in the u.s. ranked 28th. the bachelors degree rate among the u.s. population is approximately 32% according to forbes. yes, there is a need for

subsidies for especially the disenfranchised population to have the first two years of community college paid, however, it would be disconcerting if the people this program intends to help do not benefit, so there should be some government oversight and monitoring as well to avoid situation similar to the acts of the '70s and 90's. host: those examples you gave to this idea of oversight -- what kind of oversight do you think is needed? caller: monitoring can be done with respect to individuals who enter this proposed program having to provide reports on grade, types of courses being taken, as well as their future

matriculation into the workforce. that is the oversight that will indicate individuals who enter the program are genuinely benefiting from it. a caller from raleigh indicated that there would be individuals who are high-grade earners who would saturate these programs leaving little room for others. i disagree with that based on classism in our country where people in the same socioeconomic strata 10 to want to gravitate toward each other -- tend to want to gravitate toward each other. if this program is deemed to help people from a lower socioeconomic strata, there will be less interest from individuals who do not fall within that strata to take advantage of it. you had a caller who claimed that by age 14 he was working on a farm and seemed to think that

when his ancestors came from europe he did not receive any handouts, but the history of our country shows there were plenty of handouts that were provided to the european colonizers who came over. host: thanks for the context and perspective. for a viewer that says no to this idea in minnesota, this is eric, hello. or new mexico! caller: i'm not from minnesota, but i'm here. host: new hampshire! caller: i'm sure they are both beautiful states. that lady talked about handouts from the european colonizers. i would be interested to see what handouts the european colonizers were given. i think this is an awful idea. what do you think is going to

happen to the cost of community college if the government is paying the bill? it is obviously going to skyrocket! when the government gets involved in anything, the price will go up. sooner or later this program will be phased out, then when people want to go back to community college, if they are not getting it for free, the cost will be significantly higher and may be out of the range of what they can pay. why are we pursuing -- people talk about trades now. i am a licensed electrician. why aren't we talking about high school trade school? everyone wants to get out of high school and figure out " i can't do anything with my high school diploma." i often wonder, these kids are getting out of high school -- a previous caller talked about literacy rates. i do not think community college

is going to help our literacy rate in the global ratings. she said we are 32 i believe in literacy rate. i do not believe community college for free is going to help that. host: giving his perspective on this proposal by the biden administration. you are welcome to do the same. many of you are texting us this morning. this is bob from missouri, saying, " the government should be willing to help anyone -- any person get an advanced school degree." " no. there are plenty of options for those who seriously want to go. i went with the help of the bia. "

", yes, it's a great idea, but it doesn't know enough -- but it doesn't go far enough." many of you on twitter, facebook, some of you texting us this morning about this idea, this proposal from the biden administration. i would like to hear from some of you who attended community college, such as jim. caller: i attended community college here in chicago. i received excellent instruction and teaching in community college and a lot of people do not realize this. there were several articles written on that and one of the main reasons being that community colleges, that teachers can focus on teaching, whereas at universities they have to do research and politics

back goes on at -- and politics that goes on at four-year institutions. i took business courses, one at a two-year community college, where i received hands-on instruction. the other business course i took at a four-year institution, the new hire was very stressed, and she basically was almost never around for the students. you do not want -- you want to increase the opportunity for anybody to be able to advance themselves. lastly i would say the smith -- this myth that average students should not be going to college, that is nonsense. college in most cases is merely more school, more learning.

if you were a c student, you can excel, and i encourage anybody to try and better themselves. you do receive excellent teaching at community colleges, much better than your typical four-year institution. host: that is jim in chicago, giving his own personal story. you can give yours as well on any line that you call in on. one of these stories talks about this idea, richard cordray, a close ally of senator elizabeth warren, served as the first director of the consumer financial protection bureau has been selected as the head of student aid in the biden administration. it puts him at the center of the swirling debate over forgiving you didn't that.

the issue is a tricky one. mr. biden has been pressured by some democrats to forgive much more. with the new position within the education department, the primary lender, mr. cordray, may be able to relieve the president of that burden."more of that in the new york times this morning. stephanie in hollywood, florida says yes to this idea. good morning. caller: good morning. i used to be a college professor at a community college. i am very in favor of this idea, the reason being that first of all in this country we do not pay employees living wage already. we already have socialism where we allow companies to come in and say " we cannot afford to

pay employees, so we want to do it at $7.35, well below the living wage" we cannot keep having it both ways. if we are not going to pay people so they can afford to put their own children through school, then we are going to have to help those families. community college, or the idea of college gives a person hope. i happen to be in a situation now where i live very differently than i did as a child, but i grew up in a home where there was not running water. this was in the 70's, so this was not a long time ago. at the same time, i knew that if i could get through high school and i did not get through high school with an a average, i got

through high school and got b's and c's but i got to college and i excelled. i got a masters degree and i changed my standard of living within 18 years. we need to start investing in people here. if we simply raise the wage by $2.75 an hour, we would add $46 billion to this economy every year in spending. are we going to be -- are we going to invest in our people, keep sustaining this country or our we only -- are we only going to invest in the rich? host: this is carol in colfax, washington state on our no line. caller: just listening to your

last speaker, you might wonder how much the u.s. dollar can actually handle before it is not the currency of the world, before people turn to the yen or something else. when that happens, inflation will hit really hard and the value of our dollar will become worthless possibly. host: so the proposal from this administration is purely an economic sense of why you oppose it? caller: exactly. we are right about the education of our kids -- we should worry about what kind of dented we are leaving our kids -- debt we are leaving our kids. host: washington state giving his opinion on why we should not

-- a couple other stories to share with you concerning the administration when it comes to the refugee cap, the administration decided they would lift that cap 2500, the washington post adding -- lift that cap to 62,500. the washington post adding, " in his formal directive monday biden explained his shift by stating that it resulted in part from 'additional briefing and a more comprehensive presentatio'' on the government's capacity to increase the cap while addressing other. problems-- other problems."

" in the lab drove -- this adds that federal debt is now on track to reach 108% of gross domestic product. it is higher than it was after world war ii. this is from albert in fort worth, texas who says yes to this idea. caller: good morning. thank you for that question -- should the government pay for tuition? as you said, my answer to that question is yes. yes, because all it takes is to do a little research on the wide range of the cost of tuitions for community colleges. i did a little research myself. my son and i were looking for a school for him. there is such a wide range of the cost, and i think any

assistance that students can receive to pay for tuition would be helpful. they are not going to go to community college for free, because there are other fees associated with attending a community college. help with tuition is a very valuable -- is very valuable for the student. host: should other fees associated with going to college be put under this idea? caller: as your earlier -- as the man mentioned earlier, we do not have all the details to the plan, but if other fees could be included in that, then so be it. one thing about some of the callers -- they may not be in

touch with the cost of community colleges in their area possibly. they may want to do a little research so they can understand what the cost of tuition is since we are specifically talking about to wish and. host: albert there in fort worth, texas. paul in chesapeake, virginia saying, " no. the president stated that 80% of jobs created by programs will not need a college degree of any type." john in pittsburgh, pennsylvania says " it will pay for itself. the market is starving for specialized skill. economists said if there were more people with trades the economy would have been a lot better before the pandemic."

" suggested free online classes first. invest in phoenix university then expand grants program for them to the masses." linda, west jefferson, north carolina, good morning. caller: i thought you might be interested in my experience at community colleges. i went through the nursing program. i became a registered nurse at the age of 39 during jimmy carter's program called the educational training act. i was paid to go to college. i had certain requirements -- i had to stay in my community. i had to work as a registered nurse, and it changed my life. at that time i was raising two children. i was making minimum wage. my kids qualified for a free lunch program, and of course going through school -- at that

time we needed registered nurses very badly. they had brought them in from the philippines and jamaican nurses to. -- jamaican nurses too, so it was something important for the community. i would like to know what your colors would think about that. i'm not advocating that you get paid to go to college. host: this idea of covering the first two years of college under this proposal -- is that something you can support? caller: definitely. i'm not so sure -- i think it needs guidance. i think we need to figure out what type of employees we need in this country, where we are lacking, then it should be the things that we advocate for kids going to school.

just the things that we need in this country. we need certain workers, like i was as a registered nurse, and i worked for many years afterwards in my community as a registered nurse. guest: do you -- host: do you think there should be requirements as far as achieving a certain grade level in high school? caller: i do. i think there are kids who find jobs after high school that do not require an education, but more than just a grade, a definite interest not to something that you do. my husband also taught at a community college. he taught the emt class and he said there were a lot of kids in there who were there just because their parents said " you need to learn to do something," and really had no interest in that. it needs to be refined, this

whole idea of paying for college. it needs to be refined. host: adding her husband's perspective there as well to this proposal by the biden administration. proposal the president talked about and you heard dr. jill biden talk about as well, you can find that on c-span.org if you want to view it there. you can go to our website as well, and see all the programs we have taken on this topic too. from our "no" line, we will speak to mary. caller: thank you for having me on your show. first of all, i think i will speak both on pros and cons as far as this payment of the first two years is concerned. i am someone who was immensely

grateful for having an option as -- having to go to a community college as an option because of certain personal disadvantages. i became an orphan by the age of 18. i was admitted into a four-year college. i had to put a roof over my head right around then. getting to get some college credits, i ended up getting an associate in an integrated field, which actually was wonderful. i think it will also have a little impact on the decision-making body of any academic institution. who to let in on that bill because i am someone, and i have met many in community college

classrooms who were people who did not have much from their immediate families to contribute into their education. i, myself had a very working-class life. i barely knew who my professors were. i do not even remember what the first two semesters, i do not remember what their names were because work was on my mind. i did not do exceedingly well. it was definitely a good opportunity in my growing experience. it will create a little competition because when the high tier taxpayers, one thing is to bring back some of the county money to have this money re-circling back into counties.

that is one plus. it will create a little competition, so having the government to pay for the first two years for anybody will create competition for people who could actually utilize this space on the academic spaces. i think that is all i have to say. thank you. host: mary giving the pros and cons. this is steve, lacks berg, virginia -- blacksburg, virginia , yes line. caller: i spent three years as a machinist. my parents taught me how to save my money so i am doing fairly well. i definitely think it would be very helpful to -- well, the government used to help out more years ago, but i have a roommate

who is 33. he is trying to work on a computer degree and i am trying to help him out. host: what do you think the government gets out of providing this for certain students? caller: jamaal does not have any family who can help him out, so i am trying to do that. it would be very nice if the government would also help him out. host: you mean you are paying for him? caller: yes. host: steve there in blacksburg. we set up a line for those of you who did attend community college or our community -- are attending community college. caller: i attended community college here in fayetteville. differences the army -- the

difference is the army paid for me to go to any school i wanted to. we need the draft. that way you can serve your country and your country can serve you. i went to school, i retired from the army, my son was able to go to school free because i am a veteran. it is a lot of benefits we need to look into. we need to think about serving the country. i pay taxes. my taxes are enough for anybody to go to community college even if they do not serve the country. i pay taxes for any kid to go to community college. most kids before they even graduate high school can get college credits, so unless your community college has got four years of education, then two years, you can get that in high

school, two years of college in high school. we need the draft. host: talking about other ways to pay for college based on his own experience. we will finish up on tina in california who says yes. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing me to comment. i definitely am in agreement with community college. we are taxpayers and we can pay for everything else in the country for the wealthy. if we can -- if we can pay for everything else in the country for the wealthy, we can pay for community college. there is no excuse. there are a lot of young people that do not have support. some of them have no idea what they want to do with their lives . it to community college will open their mind -- going to

community college will open their mind up, exposed then to other people and possibilities -- expose them to other people and possibilities. after a semester or two they may open up and expand and flourish. in terms of forgiveness for ivy league colleges, i am against that. host: thank you, tina, and all of you who called in during this first hour. many of you talked about paying for the program such as that proposed by the biden administration. coming up we will have a debate on some of those proposals for taxes. scottlater on in the program, wl

hear from the harvard institute of politics as they talk about their new poll showing young people are more politically engaged than ever and also more hopeful. those conversations are coming up on "washington journal. " ♪ ♪ ♪ >> coming up today, attorney

general merrick garland testifies on the president's 2022 budget request for the justice department at a house appropriations subcommittee hearing. that's live just after 10 eastern on c-span following a brief house pro forma session. at 2 p.m. come a house homeland security subcommittee looks at ways to address workplace challenges for tsa personnel. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, the supreme court hears oral argument on whether low-level crack cocaine offenders are entitled to a reduced sentence under the 2018 first step act. at noon come another hearing on the presence 2022 budget request with officials from the national guard and military reserves. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion on tax policy and the biden administration. we are joined by the center of

american progress. also scott hodge of the tax foundation that serves as their president and to both of you, thank you for giving is your time this morning. guest: thank user having me. host: both of you have heard the various proposals from the president, the use of taxes to pay. what about this idea that the president proposes as far as these tax proposals, where are you on that? guest: i certainly support them. the investments are important in achieving the kind of long-term shared prosperity we have in the economy, in other words growing an economy that benefits everybody including average workers and families. the tax plan that biden is proposing is asking the largest corporations and the very richest americans to pay their fair share. no one under $400,000 pays any

more in taxes so it makes our tax code equitable. ultimately, it will make our economy much more dynamic and equitable as well. host: mr. hodge, same question to you. guest: i think the biden administration is making too big that's that i think will fail. the first one is the bet that all of this spending for the economic benefits will somehow outweigh the economic harm caused by the tax increases. economic research shows that will be a bad bet. the second bet is that all the increases in corporate taxes will not undermine the competitiveness of the u.s. economy and u.s. companies. by all accounts, the biden plan will actually make the u.s. an outlier once again with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world and a very uncompetitive international tax code which will sit back competitiveness of u.s. companies and put them behind the eight ball and trying

to compete overseas against our foreign competitors. host: the american jobs plan with the president has talked about, the idea of the corporate tax structure, would raise the corporate income tax, currently at 21% to 28%. what's wrong with that 28% figure? guest: we need to also add onto that the average state rate which is about 5.5%. when you add those together, it puts the u.s. corporate tax rate over 32% which, once again, puts us at one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrial world. even worse in some respects is the fact that the text base of the corporate code is quite broad right now. a lot of the old deductions have been removed. the effective rate on u.s. corporations will go up quite are medically. that will harm the u.s. economy and harm error competitiveness and those are two very bad things in a competitive global

economy. host: what about the idea of competitiveness amongst these rates? guest: i think we need to look at the question of competitiveness more broadly. it's not just about taxes. taxes are just a part of it. the whole point of this plan is to improve america's competitiveness and the competitiveness of our whole economy, not just corporations but our workers as well. to be clear, the taxes that president biden is proposing is for things like investments and roads, physical infrastructure, bridges, transit, ports, airports, broadband, water infrastructure ,r and& these are things that make america competitive andd. back a few years. in 2017, the united states had a tax rate of 35% which at the time was the highest tax rate in the world.

american companies were perfectly competitive. the global fortune five hundred was certainly overrepresented with american companies. corporate profits were at all-time highs. we really didn't have a problem with corporate competitiveness. in 2017, under the so-called tax cuts and jobs act, congress cut the tax rate from 35% to 21% and the really hasn't been any evidence that in the years since the corporate tax cut that there's been any of the kind of economic benefits its proponents promised. what biden is proposing is to roll back half of the rate increase and also to improve the taxation of foreign income of u.s. corporations. host: what about the idea as far as not only is it the corporate tax rate but you get state and

local tax rates on top of that as well? guest: that's right. the u.s. did have a relatively high statutory rating including state rates in 2017 and had no problem with competitiveness. you have to look at the effective rates that corporations are paying. that's the rate they pay after all the deductions and ability to shift income to tax havens and tax credits. the effective tax rate, the average tax rate that the largest corporations paid was 16% before the 2017 law and in the first year after that, it was only 8%. i think we need to look at what corporations are actually paying and not the top marginal statutory tax rate. host: you can call in for our guests.

mr. hodge, did you want to respond? guest: there is a little bit of myopia. companies were leaving the united states before the tax cuts. they were moving their headquarters to places like ireland or switzerland in order to avoid the uncompetitive u.s. corporate tax system. that all stopped after the tax cuts and jobs act. companies brought their profits back but they started bringing their intellectual property like trademarks and patents back to the u.s. because it was more competitive here. we risk going backwards in terms of setting back u.s. competitiveness by raising the corporate tax rate. oecd in paris and the corporate tax rate is the most harmful tax for economic growth because capital is so mobile and thus very sensitive to high tax rates. what mr. biden is doing is trying to raise the most harmful tax in order to pay for his

infrastructure spending. that is a very bad bet. host: as far as other proposals on the corporate side of it, it would enact 15% tax and prevent corporations from claiming tax savings as -- i'm sure this proposal has been floated before. is it possible to make that happen? guest: the proposal would make the united states an outlier. that is a risky proposal that no other country has done. the u.s. tried it back in, i think, the 1970's and they dropped it quickly because it was unworkable. once again, this is part of a large package of proposals that would make the u.s. an outlier in every respect on corporate taxation. that puts pressure on u.s. companies to start thinking about moving abroad and that's why the biden administration is putting in walls to prevent companies from leaving because

they will make the u.s. so uncompetitive. that tells you that they know these taxes are very harmful and will lead to the kind of aversions we prevented by lowering corporate tax rates. host: the idea of walls being put up by the administration to prevent them from finding of their avenues, is that possible from a government level? guest: i think it's very doable. we need to draw a distinction that the corporate version where companies leave the united states on paper. it changes its legal residence to a foreign country, usually a tax avon country. but it doesn't mean they are actually up and moving all of their offices or workforce. there was a wave of corporate aversions about 10 years ago. president obama in 2016 issued some regulations that largely put a stop to that.

i think the slowing down stem from 2016 but not because of the 2017 law. strengthening the laws against corporate aversions is only one part of what president biden is doing to prevent this artificial , all these games that corporations play to move their profits or their legal residence overseas. there are much broader proposals he is doing that would impose a minimum tax on u.s. companies' foreign income and that levels the playing field between our domestic and foreign companies. what's also critically important is this is part of an international effort to stop what stone is the corporate race to the bottom. which is each countries trying to lower his corporate tax rates below other countries and therefore shift the burden of

corporate taxes onto workers all over the world. this is part of an international effort to set a minimum corporate tax so that all the corporate revenue does not bleed into tax havens and the burden is shifted onto workers. host: we will continue with our guests and we have calls lined up. republican line, you are on with her guest, go ahead. caller: as a principal, we should establish that the legislatures -- the legislate tours and their staff should pay the maximum tax rate of any tax they implement. otherwise, they are playing with other people's money and they don't have any skin in the game. host: this is on the personal side, not the corporate side but what do you think of the idea? guest: i think legislators and their staff should pay the same tax rates that others do on wages. they pay income taxes and

payroll taxes. i'm not sure we really need to change that. the real holes in our tax code that we could talk about is how we treat income from wealth and investments which receives much more favorable tax treatment. that's not really a congressional issue but in issue of wealthy people owning assets and not paying taxes on the income on those assets. host: mr. hodge? guest: congress often exempt itself from a lot of rules, maybe not on taxes but other things like regulatory policy. i think the sentiment of the caller is right. congress often doesn't feel the real effect of the policies it implements. we need to be very cautious about that. that's one of the reasons why many of us have pushed for what we call dynamic scoring of the economic effects of tax policy.

that was allowed in the previous congress but the current congress has eliminated that policy and i think it's important for economists within the joint committee on taxation in congress to measure the microeconomic effect of these text policies so that we understand the long-term effects these will have on things like gdp, on jobs, on wages, on capital investment. if you don't measure those things and simply implement the policy, you are literally flying blind economically and just making up tax policy and wishing were hoping that won't have the kind of effects that will actually damage the economy and ultimately, because you did that, you will lose revenue. when we measure the effect of mr. biden's increase in the capital gains tax rate, we found it would actually lose revenue because it would stifle realizations of capital gains that the government would simply not raise any revenue.

it's to the tune of about $130 billion in revenues over 30 years and that educates lawmakers so they understand the consequences their policy. host: the top income rate for wealthy taxpayers will be 39.6% and the capital gains rate would be 39.6 as well, also adding a surtax on medicare. we will talk about those in a moment. ronald in new hampshire, democrats line, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. what people want more than anything else is a fair system. the way it is set up now, they have all these deductions and exemptions. if you got rid of every single deduction and every single exemption and you text every single dollar that changes hands in the united states every year, the tax rate would be 1400

trillion dollars. you can make $7 trillion in revenue if you taxed that at one half of 1%. that's how much we are all pitting away with these deductions and exemptions. if you get rid of all those, you can lower the rate and bring in a lot more revenue. host: mr. hodge, we will start with you. guest: there is about $1.3 trillion worth of deductions in the tax code. most of those are on the individual side, small portion are on the corporate side.most of the corporate deductions have been illuminated over the years. many of those things are things like your 401(k), the deduction the companies get for providing health care and so forth. we have to be somewhat careful in tossing around the idea of closing loopholes. the sentiment is correct. we should try to reduce the amount of loopholes or

deductions in the code while lowering tax rates. that's an efficient way to do it. to your question of fairness, a lot of people don't realize how progressive the income tax code is. we have one of the most progressive and redistributive income tax systems of any industrialized country. the top 1% of taxpayers in the united states pays 40% of all the income taxes. meanwhile, we have an estimated 58 million americans, low and middle income people, who pay no income tax whatsoever because of the deductions that are in the tax code, like the child credit has wiped out the tax code for millions of people, 40% this year and many of them will get a refund back because these are such generous tax credits. we have to understand the incredible progress in the current code room we start talking about fairness. we have an incredibly progressive income tax system

and with all the political rhetoric, you simply never know it. guest: low and middle income people pay income taxes, they pay payroll taxes and state taxes so they pay plenty of taxes. they kick in their fair share into the system. we need to look on the issue of fairness. to give one example on capital gains, we don't tax capital gains until they are realized or sold. that creates an enormous loophole in the tax code. if somebody holds assets their entire lifetime and passes those assets onto their heirs, there is no income tax paid on those gains. you look at cases like jeff bezos, his wealth increased by tens of billions of dollars this past year during the pandemic.

he will pay no taxes this year on that increase in his wealth. if he keeps those assets, that entire gain will never be reflected in his income and will never be subject to capital gains tax. president biden's plan not only raises the rate on capital gains so that it matches the top rate on regular income but it closes that loophole so that these huge amounts of capital gains, massive accumulations of wealth can't escape income tax indefinitely. host: there was a clarification from the white house as far as who will be taxed under certain situations. when it comes to that $400,000 figure we heard about coming from the white house, that tax cap, it would be for individual earnings, not joint filers. what do you think about this clarification? guest: i think president biden

said no one earning under $400,000. he said that every chance he got that no one paying -- earning under $400,000 will pay anymore tax. this is just keeping that promise. he is starting the increase in the top rate for couples comfortably higher than $400,000. host: mr. hodge? guest: the goalposts have been moving a lot over the last year on the biden plan. it's been difficult to get a straight answer from them where these numbers will be. the bigger point is, you can target where the tax bill is sent or the people to whom you are sending the bill but you cannot protect the rest of the economy or other taxpayers or workers in the economic fallout of those harmful taxes.

the corporate income tax is a good example where economic research shows that workers bear a larger and larger share of the economic burden of the corporate income tax with women, low skilled workers being taxed the most with lower wages because of the fact of the corporate income tax. we see the same effect with high personal income taxes which can often affect what we call pass-through businesses. the more you raise their tax rates, the more you will affect their workers. you can target the tax bill to certain people but you cannot protect the rest of us from the economic fallout. host: let's hear from bob in michigan, independent line, go ahead. caller: yes, we have lots of conversations about fairness. let's take a look at some of the fairness. pull up the u.s. debt clock and these are the facts. this is not how i feel. the u.s. debt clock is 330

million people, 125 million pay federal income tax. that's 60% that paid nothing or actually receive stipends from the government through child tax credits and whatnot. if you look at the remaining 40% and go to the irs website, you will see that the top 50% of those who actually do pay the income tax pay 97 point 5% of all federal income tax collected. the person who says that's not fair, i'm sitting on the right side of my screen, i just prove to you 80% of the people in this country pay zero federal income tax or receive stipends. if you want to talk about fairness, everybody should pay the same amount, not a flat tax like 10% or 15%. it should never be a percent of income. it should be a flat fee like

$2000 per person. we are paying for government services. if i pay more for government services, that's inequality. that is not fair. we pay the same amount for hundreds of thousands of goods and services in this country. i pull up to the pump or gasoline. the pump does not take a picture of my suv or my mercedes-benz and charges me $25 per gallon. we all pay the same. only when it comes to government services do we look at the lifestyle people have chosen and text them accordingly. host: we will take those comments and start with our guests. guest: i think there is a broad agreement across the political spectrum that taxes should be based on the ability to pay and not a flat tax or a head tax. that's why we have a progressive income tax. the problem is, our income tax is shot full of loopholes.

that allows billionaires to escape paying billions of dollars in taxes. what we are trying to do and what president biden is trying to do is fix those flaws in the income tax to make it a truly progressive tax and truly ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. i also think we cannot just look at this federal income tax in isolation. it is a relatively progressive element of our overall tax system. low and middle income people pay other taxes like payroll taxes and every dollar of wages and state taxes and sales taxes and even though who don't pay income taxes any given year, a lot of those are seniors who are retired and getting social security income, they don't have to pay taxes so that's a lot of them but even the people who don't pay income taxes in a given year are likely to pay income taxes at other points in their lives.

we have had an enormous increase in economic inequality for many reasons. one of those reasons is that our tax code has loopholes that have allowed tremendous amounts of accumulation of wealth. to address the overall inequality in our society and our economy, president biden -- that's what's animating president biden's tax plan. guest: i think the caller is onto something and that is that he is suggesting correctly that people want other people to have skin in the game, to at least pay something for the cost of government. what mr. hamlet is overlooking is the fact that we have 40% or 15 million americans who pay no income taxes because of the generosity of these credits that have been created and expanded over the last 30 years. as a result, the top 1% of

taxpayers pay 40% of all the income taxes and 25% of all federal taxes. the congressional budget office didn't study a few years ago looking -- did a study between the balance of what people receiving direct government spending and what they pay overall and federal taxes. they found that the bottom 60% of americans get more indirect government spending than they pay in all federal taxes. meanwhile, those at the top, the top 20%, pay $1.7 trillion more in taxes than they getting government spending. we have a massive amount of redistribution that's happening between tax policy and spending policy and as a result, we have one of the most progressive and redistributive for school systems in the world. guest: the main reason the top 1% pay 25% of federal taxes is

that they earn over 20% of all income. the reason their share of the taxes is good -- has gone up is that their share of overall income has skyrocketed. we just need to look at this more holistic lee. -- holistically. we are not paying for a government service here. we are trying to institute a fair tax code where people are tacked on their ability to pay who benefit from the fruits of this economy. over the last several decades in the top 1%, they have benefited overwhelmingly from the fruits of the economy. that's why it's not only fair to ask them to pay more but why we need to make more investments to broaden prosperity in this country. host: care two guests are joining the desha joining us.

you just heard from seth hamlin and scott hodge of the tax foundation. we will hear from victor in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking michael. i just want to relate to the same issues the other caller said. i don't think the tax code being 1000 pages long or your personal income tax being four pages and business taxes 100 paces that they have eliminated all the loopholes and all the deductions. it's not as simple as they make it out that all the loopholes have been eliminated. as long as you have appropriate tariffs in place to ensure that foreign country businesses don't take advantage of our businesses, a fair tax is a flat

tax. if you make $100,000 per year, usace of -- you pay a certain percentage and if you make 10 million a year, you pay certain percentage. that is the only fair way to do it. you cannot have 1000 pages in a tax bill and say that you have eliminated loopholes and you have eliminated deductions. if you are in business, you are in business to make a profit. if you need deductions and loopholes to be in business then you shouldn't be in business. someone else will provide that service. i know you are talk about the biden administration tax proposal but a fair taxes were everybody pays the same rate no matter what you make. if you are in business and you make a good product, you will sell it and if you don't make a good product, you will not be able to sell it and as long as we have appropriate tariffs, you won't be taken advantage of by foreign businesses. host: mr. hodge, you go first.

guest: tariffs are a texan americans. many people think they are attacks on foreigners. they are really a texan americans. we model the trump tax tariffs and we found it damp and dampened investment certainly and it harmed american companies and american workers. it was a very bad idea. we have to be very careful about thinking the wrong way about how tariffs really work. they are really a tax on americans who make products here. they are very damaging. we ought to be very cautious about entering into these kinds of things and trying to punish other countries because it ends up back lashing american workers. guest: i would agree with scott on tariffs. they are paid by american consumers.

i think most americans have it tax system that's based on the ability to pay and is reflected in the fact that we have graduated tax rates were people of lower and middle income pay starting at 10% and people at the highest pay right now 37% and president biden wants to raise that to 39.6%. even more important is that we tax forms of income differently. we tax wages differently than we tax passive income from investments and wealth. we also have a special tax deduction that lowers the rate for some businesses. income earned through partnerships or s corporations gets a special lower tax rate than other income.

if we want to talk about simplicity, an important step we can take is equalizing the treatment of income across forms of income. president biden's plan takes a step toward doing that by equalizing the ordinary income in the rate on capital gains for the people who are above $1 million who were the ones that see the most capital gains. host: i will ask both of you, what's the role of the irs as far as the biden administration's goals for making this happen? what has to change to make it happen? guest: there is a key component of president biden's plan which is rebuilding the irs which has been decimated by decades of budget cuts and attrition. i think this goes to better enforcing the tax code and collecting the revenue, in particular collecting the revenue from large corporations

and high income individuals. they are responsible for a disproportionate share of unpaid taxes in the country. it also goes to improving customer service and taxpayer service. i read an article the other day that the irs was answering one out of 50 calls for people seeking guidance. the important part of the president biden plan is to rebuild the irs which is an $80 billion plan so they can hire skilled auditors to have the ability to go after wealthy tax cheats with complicated tax return -- tax returns and large corporations that are shifting income overseas through these complex tax dodges. it puts the government on a somewhat equal footing with the wealthy and corporate taxpayers. and also improve irs technology which i think will improve tax

enforcement and raise revenue but also will improve service for ordinary taxpayers a great deal. guest: most of the largest companies in the united states are audited every year or at least every other year ended some companies, irs agents are on-site five days per week, 52 weeks a year. those companies have to provide office space for the irs auditors because the audits are ongoing. that's just a natural function of paying taxes at a large multinational. there are many checks on the system. the joint committee on taxation and congress has to approve or at least review any tax refunds larger than $5 million. people complained about these companies getting large refunds. congress has a check on that and they look for those tax returns to make sure they are done properly. one thing i will point out is we

are asking the irs to do too much. because of all the credits and deductions and loopholes and things we have created over the years, we are asking the irs to oversee transportation programs and things like tax credits for hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles, you get a tax credit for putting a solar panel on your roof, tax credit for putting your kids in daycare, a tax credit for adopting a child. a tax credit for going to college, all of these things we are asking the irs to do is overwhelming the system. the way to improve irs administration and so forth is to simplify the tax code. stop asking the irs to do the work of all these other agencies and that will not only improve it, it will get it back to basics to do what it should be doing and that's just being a tax collection agency, not a social welfare agency or an education or health care or transportation agency which is

asking it to do far more than it's capable of doing. guest: we -- the audit for the largest corporations used to be 100% and it's dropped in half over the last decade. the audit rate for the top 1% of richest individuals in this country has dropped by 80%. it's not just about the audit coverage. even when corporations are getting audited, doesn't mean they are getting audited early. audited thoroughly. even when the irs assesses additional tax, companies go to court and they dragged through that for years and went up paying a fraction of the tax. i think people understand this. there is a real two-tiered text system where the wealthy and corporations can get away with avoiding taxes and in many

cases, evading taxes. that's a big part of president biden's plan. it's simply making the wealthy and corporations pay what they already owe under the current tax code. guest: billions is a funny number. ronald reagan was ridiculed for his waste, fraud and abuse in one of his first budgets. they were going to eliminate that to balance the budget. 700 billion dollars is about the same. it's like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. if we just increase enforcement, we will get all this revenue and close the tax gap. i've been in washington 35 years and they've been trying to close the tax gap to come up with money and to me, it's a fantasy. i think simplifying the tax system so that we have -- we allow the irs to enforce the tax code and allow people to simply

rely on it is the best way of closing that tax gap, not throwing the it's of dollars at the irs. guest: the problem with the irs is we've been going backwards over this past several decades. we have decimated the irs. they have relied on decades-old technology. they have lost 30% of their enforcement personnel and the irs commissioner said the other day that he believes we could be losing $1 trillion per year in unpaid taxes. >> that's another phony number. host: let him finish. guest: other official estimates if you extrapolate them would be $600 billion. over 10 years, we are talking $6 trillion or $10 trillion. president biden's plan by rebuilding the irs is trying to

recoup $700 billion of that. i think that's perfectly reasonable i think it's a conservative estimate. host: final word for we go to her next call? guest: we have to worry about the harm we are going to do to other compliant taxpayers and trying to close this tax gap to come up with that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. increasing enforcement could also increase the compliance burden on the rest of us who do our fair share and pay her taxes on time and in the right way. host: washington state, and a republican line. caller: good morning. the progressives in our country are responsible for giving us the federal reserve and income tax in the same year, i think it was 1915 and was the worst thing that ever happened to this country. all i can say generally his fair share, fair share. they don't speak to the 34% more ways that a government worker

makes where the average age of 56 and they retire at $62,000 per year. that has nothing to do with the fair share. the average amount of taxes people pay in this country across all spectrums, if you own a home with the state income tax and pay federal income tax and make one who thousand dollars a year which is not that much anymore, you pay 50% of your life to the government. you tell me that's fair? that's absolutely insane. we need to go -- we need to go to a sales tax like your states collect cash -- collective tax and make it low and for the people on the bottom of the echelon that would hit, give them a tax return on that, let them save the receipts or whatever they paid and that federal income tax.

it sickens me to see that this country has gone along so much with this redistribution of wealth. if you ask a progressive how much more should i pay, they only answer with one word, more. host: mr. hm yoa go first. mlin, guest: the sales tax is very progressive and what if we move toward that, we are putting -- more of a burden on middle income people. it was an important point that scott raised about the compliance burden on regular individuals. i think the biden plan is aimed at actually lowering the compliance burden on ordinary individuals. it dedicates all of the additional resources for auditing toward the wealthy and corporations. and for improving irs technology

so that people earning under $400,000, won't be audited at any higher rate than they have been in recent years and not only that, the improvement the irs will make in computer technology and information reporting will allow the irs to better target audits toward actual tax cheats. i think it's important to know that people who are not wealthy and are paying their taxes like small business owners paying their taxes, can see their competitors are large corporations shirking there's. ordinary people will be less likely to be audited. and they will have better customer service and hopefully a better tax filing experience with the irs. guest: i think the caller had an interesting point. if they felt the idea fair share and we do here that bantered around. i've never heard anyone in

congress actually being asked to put a number on what they mean by fair share. currently, the top 1% of taxpayers pays 20% of all the income taxes. it's not -- if that's not a fair share, i'd like to know what is. is zero a fair share? 50 million americans this year, we estimate will pay no income taxes because of the generosity of the credits and deductions. is that a fair share? let's have an honest debate using real numbers about this topic. throwing around the term fair share is simply not addressing the issue. it is simply political rhetoric but it does not answer the question, what is real fair share? there is no objective standard for what fair share is. it's what we believe. many of the callers think a fair tax system is a flat tax where

we all pay the same rate. that's a very justifiable tech system and there are countries in europe that have those kind of text systems. we should debate this and be honest about using real data and we haven't really and this current debate. host: both of you had plenty of experience in washington as far as how politics works, the proposal from the president is one thing. what's the ability of congress to exley make that happen? -- to actually make that happen? guest: i think they will pass a gargantuan spending bill with a modest amount of taxes. we are still seeing quite a considerable debate among democrats about these tax proposals. we have seen a lot of caution among somewhere there is the more moderate members of the democratic party about the economic impact. i think that's a healthy thing to have. there should be more skepticism.

it should start with doing macro economic modeling of the economic effect of these. we will be releasing our estimate of the economic effects of the american family plan within the next day or so. we find it will be economically harmful and the benefits of all these tax edits for low income people will not be outweighed by the harm done by raising the capital gains rate top marginal tax rates and so forth. we have to be careful. the congressional budget office said in a report recently that the macro economic benefits of infrastructure spending are about half that of private investments. the benefits of government infrastructure spending depend on how it's financed. president bynum has chosen the most economically harmful way of financing his infrastructure and spending programs.

the end result is an economy that will be smaller, less vibrant and yet more redistributed and that's not a healthy economy. host: given the narrowness in the senate, do you think that will pass? guest:guest: i think it will be dramatically scaled back but the same time, there are those on the far left who see this as their moment to try to one of the great society programs of lyndon johnson or fdr and try to pass something that's monumental and will have long-lasting impact, much in the way obama passed obamacare. it was a hail mary and they passed it and it will always be there now. i think they see that -- i think they see this as their moment. guest: i think something bold will get done and i think it will be fairly monumental. i think it's responding to decades of the erosion of

economic security of american families. what president biden is for posing -- is proposing on the investment side, that's really what is driving this, is universal pre-k, free community college, bold investments in infrastructure, broadband, r&d, a national paid family leave medical program, tax breaks for working families with children that will lower the poverty rate nearly in half. half. these are monumental investments and i think this the moment to do it and certainly the tax proposal will be looked over and there will be lots of lobbying against it. there already is but ultimately, congress will come together and get something done this year. host: from teddy in louisiana, democrats line, thanks for waiting. caller: thank you, i guess my

question would be historically, when we had no irs agents, how did we tacked -- how did we collect taxes over the years ? do we have a lower rate now or are we at a higher tax rate? host: mr. hod dog you wante to go first? , guest: we need to talk about the changes that have happened technologically. all of us are using paid software and tax assistance to pay her taxes for file or tax returns. about 76% of all americans use some sort of software or professional to help them pay their taxes. we are doing the job of the irs and when we talk about the shrinkage of the irs budget, a lot of that came from people who use to type in their tax returns by hand and we are doing that

for them. companies now are filing the tax returns which often run into 25,000 pages, they are filing them electronically as well. some of this is the natural shrinkage that happens with technological change. let's get back to the president's spending initiatives. if you add up the total cost of the american recovery plan, the jobs plan and the family plan, it's about $5.7 trillion worth of spending. that's enough to buy the three largest companies in america, apple, microsoft and amazon. there is an opportunity cost relative to private sector spending. the congressional budget office found that private sector investments returned twice as much as government investments. we have to be very cautious about entering into these massive spending projects and then touting the economic benefit because there are

opportunity cost in terms of the return which are less in the private sector but the economic cost of raising the revenues in order to pay for those government investments that return half. as much is the private sector guest: i think we need to look at the cost if we don't act on things like child poverty. there are studies after studies that show the effects on children's health, on their educational attainment and whether they join the labor force in the future and have earnings in the future. these are investments that will pay off in the long term. if you look at things like child care and paid family and medical care, this will allow more people to come into the workforce, to make our economy more dynamic. investments in r&d lays the foundation for long-term productivity. host: let's hear from paul in connecticut, independent line.

caller: good morning and thank you for having me. in my opinion, the argument over the tax rate is grossly exaggerated. more time should be focused on the tax deductions. the basic premise of the tax deduction is to direct spending. to something beneficial. i was looking into one particular program which was a free-trade zone where the material comes in tax-free from another country. we do something of a value edit process and when it leaves the tax zone, we get taxed. the problem we had here was it

was rather expensive and requires a lot of documentation for a company our size. i am not so sure where we will go with that. the other thing that i look at is if you look at these large companies and pratt & whitney is a big employer in connecticut. when i worked there in the 1980's, they were closing down a lot of research. what they did to the replace that, i don't know. you would think we would want to direct investment in this area. host: mr. jhamlin, you start. guest: president biden's plan is in job training and r and& i think those things are aimed atd bringing our manufacturing base back. on the tax side, i would agree that we really need to look at

not just the rates but also deductions and not just formal deductions but the complex games that some taxpayers do to pay the actual rates -- do to avoid paying the actual rates. a few years ago, large corporations were avoiding $100 billion in taxes on their profits by reporting artificially their profits and tax haven countries. the 2017 law address that someone in a not strong enough way. pars of president biden's plan is to get at that. that way these corporate profits, not just about the rate but corporate profits ending up in these tax haven countries through these legal and guest: guest: accounting schemes. a number of the biden proposals amount to industrialized --

industrial policy where the government will pick and choose winners and losers and where investment dollars go. that is bound for waste, fraud and abuse. how do we make the tax code reasonable? one way is to eliminate some of these deductions that tend to benefit high income taxpayers like the state and local tax deduction. they largely accrued to high income taxpayers. that was scaled back to a $10,000 limit. i think we should eliminate it altogether. yet, there are many progressive democrats that say you need to restore that so it will protect my taxpayers in high income places like new york, new jersey and connecticut. there is a lot of hypocrisy going on here. we should start with things like

limiting the state and local tax deduction, perhaps scaling back mortgage interest deduction and other areas where we could scale back the tax inductions without raising rates and that does less harm to the economy and changes the behavior less than simply raging marginal -- than simply raising marginal tax rates. host: i'm curious what you think of those proposals. guest: this is an area where i have some disagreements. members of congress in states like new york and california want to restore an unlimited salt deduction. that is extremely expensive to do so over the next five years, something like 400 dollars. -- like $400 billion and it benefits people at the top. there are indirect benefits but the direct tax cuts no doubt,

the majority to -- go to the top 1%. i don't think democrats should use up a big portion of this investment package to essentially give another tax cut to high income people. you can address salt in a much more targeted way toward actual middle-class people. few of them are subject to the salt cap. we absolutely should be closing loopholes in the tax code. there is one note tori -- notorious loophole which of the carried interest loophole. president biden's plan eliminates that loophole.

president biden's plan is very much about eliminating loopholes.in the tax code lets hear host: host: from debbie inn, flint, michigan, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. when mr. hamlin, the other guy said 25% of all income tax was paid by the top 1% h and then mr.ham said theyl get 20i percent of all the incomen but that's like 2000 people. my question is, there has been a lot of talk about the minimum wage going up to $15. it seems that if the pot of money stayed the same in the amount of taxes paid in the same, if they actually gave people a living wage, they would

no longer be able to say the middle class and lower middle class don't pay their fair share. i think they would find the money -- the tax money would go up. i would like to hear both opinions on that. thank you for taking my call. guest: the top 1% isthe top 5% n people and they pay a larger share than the bottom 90% of taxpayers combined. that is 130 million people. they earn about 20% of the nation's income, but pay 40% of the nation's income taxes so twice the share of taxes relative to their income. and they pay 25% of all taxes when you bring everything together. i think the rich are paying more than their fair share. i am willing to say that. i think there are millions of people at the low and middle income that pay nothing. we estimate about 58 million will pay no income taxes this

year because of the generosity of deductions and the congressional budget office produces data every year showing more and more people at the bottom are seeing negative effective tax rates. that means the generosity of the credit deductions overwhelm the other taxes they pay whether it is social security, cigarette taxes, gas taxes what have you. most people at the low and middle income are paying less and less each year while the burden is being placed on the top. that is economically risky in my mind because the incomes of people at the top are the most volatile because they tend to be business and investment related, and that tends to go up and down with the business cycle. host: mr. hanlon? guest: first, if you look at the overall fiscal system including the overall tax system and state taxes you will find the institute for taxation has found

our tax code overall, when you include all the taxes, is modestly progressive. people with the highest incomes do pay a little higher share of the income than people in the middle or bottom, but it is not as skewed as the numbers would suggest which are solely federal income taxes. on the question of whether people are paying taxes at the bottom, it simply doesn't -- we have people living in poverty and are not further taxed into poverty. i think a key part of president biden's plan is expanding the tax credits for the poorest families, raising millions of children out of poverty, also single workers. but to go back to the caller's point i agree on the minimum wage. we do need a living wage and

there has been efforts. i think there have been efforts that the house passed a $15 minimum wage. the problem in the senate is unless they get rid of the filibuster, you need 60 votes to pass the minimum wage and there is just not the republican votes to get to 60. unfortunately, because of the parliamentary decision, you cannot raise the minimum wage through this process called reconciliation where democrats could pass with bare majority. anyway, long story short yes, we need to raise minimum wage. i would hope they would eliminate the filibuster to do it but it doesn't look like they will. in that case the republican senators standing in the way. host: we have guests joining us to talk about taxes and the biden administration. you heard from seth hanlon, senior fellow with the center

for american progress and from scott hodge, harvard institute of politics. host: when it comes to government should pay for the first two years of community college? that is the proposal from the biden administration. if you say yes, (202)-748-8000. if you say no, (202)-748-8001. if you attend community college and want to give your input, call us at (202)-748-8002. if you wish to text us, you can text at (202)-748-8003. you can also post on twitter and facebook. this comes out of proposals from the biden administration. the president and first lady traveling to virginia, hampton roads, to talk about their perspective when it comes to what the administration wants to offer for community college.

here is the president from yesterday. >> we are going to add two years of community college on top of that. you heard jill talk about community colleges and how it can change lives. students at this community college and across the country know why. for some it is two years of community college to earn enough credits to transfer to a four year university to become a teacher, entrepreneur, anything else. for others it is getting extra training through a certificate program to get a good paying job. we just met with students at the workshop. ambitious, talented students who are up to taking the next step in their lives. with the skills they are learning here some of them will go on to be plumbers, members of the pipefitters, electricians. it means higher union wages with guaranteed health care and pensions. host: that is just some of the proposals made by the president and first lady.

if it was passed, two years of community college being paid for some by the biden administration. to give you a cost perspective when it comes to community college for a private 44-year university --crutcher university, $35,000. when you take that to out-of-state that drops to $27,000. public four year in-state education $10,000. and when it comes to community college $3700. that is the average tuition paid. that is separate from fees and books. the administration is proposing two years of being paid for by the biden administration as part of the "american families plan." we want to know what you think

about this plan or if the government should be paying for college. if you say yes, (202)-748-8000. if you say no, (202)-748-8001 and if you attended community college, (202)-748-8002. we showed you this earlier but another perspective on the proposal came from preston cooper, a forbes contributor. he writes this idea saying, "free community college solves the problem that largely doesn't exist as community college is already affordable. you probably will not fix the problems that afflict this part of the higher education system such as low completion rate and high student default rates." it goes on to say, "taxpayers should wonder what they are getting for the president's proposed investment. demand better." preston cooper writes for forbes magazine. part of the team joining the

president yesterday at tidewater community college in virginia was his wife, former community college professor dr. jill biden, talking about her perspective. >> our schools accept everyone regardless of age or race or income or family legacy. and they offer classes that are flexible so students do not have to choose between work and school. they train for real world jobs like i saw in the lab. they tailored to the communities they serve. or they provide a strong foundation for those students who want to go on to a four year degree. community college graduates provide more security for their families. they invest in their local schools and businesses and they bring needed skills, to our workforce helping us meet the

needs and challenges of the 21st century. that is why we need two years of free community college. [applause] thank you, mr. president. host: that whole event if you would like to see not only the speakers but the others involved, go to our website at c-span.org to find out more about that event. yesterday the wall street editorial board, when talking about the proposal as part of the overall spending package, saying the progressive hits keep coming. going on to say the latest is the $1.8 trillion american families plan. is more accurate to call this plan to make the middle class depend on government from cradle-to-grave. the government will tell you sometime later you are hooked to the state. we call the price tag breathtaking but what is another

$2 trillion. ? we have three ways of letting you talk to us as farce phone lines, if this is something you support, call us on the yes line. if you would like to call us on the no line, you can do that and for community college students you can call at (202)-748-8002. robert says yes to the proposal. caller: i believe this is an intervention in america. it is direct investment. the best investment we ever made. host: why is it an investment? caller: because you are investing in people. they have a purpose. everybody will gain.

everybody's life will gain. host: kenneth is in alvin a, new york calling -- albany, new york . caller: i say no because by george i tell you what, if they cannot go to college, they cannot do it on their own. my wife and i sacrifice to put my daughter through school. i put in for her education and i bottomed out to help her and got her a good car to go to college on. i made payments on it for five years to get her to go to college and by the way, she went to college for 8 years. her mother and i helped put her through college for four years. but we were kind of poor.

she earned money to finish her college and she is a pharmacist now and she is making payments on it and by george if we can do it, everybody else in the united states can do it. host: that was the caller from kentucky. somebody texting us this morning. charlene saying paid for two years of community college. considerate like the 13th and 14th grade to compete with the world. why should we stop after the 12th grade? amina in st. louis saying i have a dual degree in architecture. this was possible because i took classes at community college. many of the credits from the transfer to nd save me from student loans. i find it interesting that people who benefited from similar programs don't want to help the current generations

that needed more than ever. from those who attended community college such as jason in virginia. hello. caller: how's it going? i don't think they should be paying for it because it is already programs that are public service minded like the army college fund. i think they should do more public service initiatives that are tied to that so there is an incentive for people to actually do well in college versus somebody paying for it. host: this is from betty in illinois who says yes to this proposal. hello. caller: if this would have been allowed when i was younger, it would have been a great deal and i think that the education that people get is so good whether it is community or three year, four

year. i went and thought it was great but i paid for it obviously. it is a great experience and i think the old-timers should get on board with this. host: this is from a text or saying roger in north carolina saying, free two-year college should come with requirements. minimum grade point average and if you do not finish, you have to pay. from carrie in atlanta, georgia on the yes line, hello. caller: yes, for community college i would have to say yes. it has to do with the upheaval of education. it is something new. it would probably make us more organized. i have to agree for it. i am always big on education. i would have to say yes. it is a great way of giving more

and for better research purposes in the near future so why not give it a try? host: several things happening other places. cnn reporting the biggest signal liz cheney of wyoming may lose leadership. kevin mccarthy said this morning quote, "i have heard from members concerned about her able to carry. out the message we need to be working as one." this from jim from cnn saying, we could get pfizer to have emergency use for the vaccine children 2 to 11.

margaret, go ahead from new york on the no line. caller: nothing is free. what are the strings attached to the college, the administration, and the teaching methods and what they will be teaching? nothing is free. like the previous caller said, maybe incentives. have your legions and your municipalities do grants and that kind of thing. there if people are willing to take the time to write and get these grants. i disagree because i think there are too many strings attached at the administration of what will be taught. and the more money thrown into

it, the tuition keeps going up. host: that was margaret in new york giving her opinion on this. when it comes to vaccination you heard the tweet about pfizer. there's a story in the wall street journal about the slowing of vaccinations across the united states. this says nearly 40% of the u.s. adult population is fully vaccinated against covid-19 according to the centers for disease control and prevention. but it adds the pace of vaccinations has slowed to an average of 2.5 million per day. that is down from 3.2 million earlier in april. you can read more of that in the wall street journal when it comes to the topic of vaccinations. when it comes to community colleges and whether the government should pay let's hear from john in pennsylvania who says yes. caller: yes, good morning. the school district here in johnstown have a program where you can earn college credits,

two years of college credits in the high school level, and i thought that was a great idea. may be of more schools would do that, that would cut down on the cost. it is free public education in high schools and you are getting college credits for it. something to think about anyway. host: do you know people who have gone that route and how successful they were? caller: it has been a tremendous program. i think it has been in effect two or three years now. they can just transfer the credits to the local community colleges. host: this is similar from a viewer of carol in new york saying yes to one year in trade school or equivalent. no to two years. we need skin in the game otherwise it does not make the

youth more responsible. it needs to be available for part-time students of any age to help working adults. currently in new york, working adults cannot get free tuition if they go part-time. this is from kevin and columbus, ohio saying my wife and i paid 100% college expenses for our daughters. total costs right now around $250,000. this could have been in our retirement. will be be repaid for being responsible parents while those who are irresponsible get their debt forgiven or will he be punished? we are getting a variety of perspectives when it comes to this topic. when it comes to others like immigration the new york times highlighting the fact the majority leader of the senate has a plan b when it comes to passing immigration legislation saying, mr. schumer is privately told the hispanic caucus in recent weeks he is actively exploring whether it would be possible to attach a broad revision of immigration laws to president biden's infrastructure

plans through budget reconciliation. the move would allow the measures to pass evenly divided senate with simple majority of 51 votes, shielding them from filibuster in the 60 vote threshold which otherwise would require at least 10 republican vote. the new york times giving that perspective. the washington times highlighting the fact it will be facebook deciding the former president's presence on its platform. this by ryan lovelace saying president trump was suspended on january 6 after the ryan and several other tech platforms did likewise including twitter, which enacted a permanent suspension against the former president and google owned youtube. the decision wednesday could affect the timing of other company's decisions about whether to follow twitter's approach to permanently banning him or reverse the ban online. katrina from atlanta on the yes

line. hello. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to say i agree with tuition for the kids to go to school. we always fail to invest in our kids and they wonder why crime in these young people are doing things. they will not invest in people. we need to start investing in our kids, we need to start letting them know there is a bigger future for them, and the people that call and say hey, i paid for my kids' tuition. that is your circumstance. i understand there are people who cannot afford that and when you wake up until your kid that they cannot see a future because you cannot afford to pay for them to go to school, that takes a lot out of a person. it takes a lot out of the kid and the parent because they know there is no way in this world --

they are just try to put a roof over their head and now you're saying i cannot give you a possible future because i cannot afford high tuition? and they keep going up. we can give money to other countries, we need to invest in our children and give them a future. host: that is katrina in georgia. this is chris on the no line. hello. caller: the reason i called to say no is what we just heard from that young lady. we do not invest in our children and our high schoolers are coming out with no trade skills. they are going to go and get free tuition or get an associates degree in what? trade is the key. if you are going to give money out to people for school, do it for trade. gives them a scale and that way they can compete the rest of their life and actually progress.

whereas if they get an associates degree is a basket weaver, they are not getting life out of that. they will end up being impoverished. the tax code, this can all be eliminated by doing justice to the people. host: ok. we will leave it there. thank you to all of you who participated. one more segment taking a look at young people, particularly a new poll from the harvard institute of politics. john della volpe will talk about young voters not being on the more mentally engaged but be more hopeful. we talk about those findings when washington journal continues. ♪ announcer: today a house homeland security subcommittee holds a hearing looking at challenges in the transportation and security agency workforce. live coverage begins at 2:00

p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. the supreme court hears oral arguments this morning. the case on whether defendants should receive greater sentences for crack cocaine offenses and can get sentencing relief under the 2018 first stamp act. watch list during at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, online at c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. announcer: go to c-span.org/coronavirus for the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic. if you missed the live coverage, it is easy to find the latest briefings and the biting demonstration's response using the interactive gallery of maps. go to c-span.org/coronavirus. announcer: washington journal

continues. host: joining us now is john della volpe, the pole and director of the harvard institute of politics to talk about the latest poll taking a look at young voters. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: what is this about? what are you looking for when you compile this information? guest: we have been doing this poll for 21 years. we have had 21 classes of undergraduates who have worked with me in collaboration to write the questions and analyze the data. every single semester we have undergraduates who go through a series of exercises to develop a series of questions they want to know about their peers across the united states. for this particular survey this semester our students clearly wanted to check in on the biden administration the first 100 days. we talked -- they were

interested in the efficacy of politics and how that changed over the course of this time period. they are concerned about mental health, trust in institutions, social media, there were a lot of things covered, but the most fun for me is working with these undergraduates to figure out what they want to know about the other members of their generation. unless our institutions, elected officials, leaders understand the rising generation i think they will be hard-pressed to really develop their own strategies and therefore not connected them to the extent i think we all need to be connected. host: can you give an overview of the people you talked with? where they fall politically, how do you do that as you are compiling the pole? guest: good question. we use a probability of basic sample which means every young person between 18 and 29 has an

equal chance of being selected. again, it is a survey of 18 to 29-year-old americans. we have been doing this since the oldest millennials able to vote in 2000 and today the survey includes millennials, which would be between 25 and 29 within the survey, and also gen z, those would be the youngest part 18 to 24. it is a representative sample which means we talk to all young people. roughly half man and half woman. their community college students, graduate, those who are uncomfortable taking the survey in english we also have spanish. it is as robust as one can be conducted. host: one of the questions you engage students with is this idea of hopefulness when it comes to where they are in the united states. the question right now, are you

more hopeful or fearful about the future of america? when you look to the people you polled 56 percent saying in 2021 they were hopeful versus 31% in 2017. it breaks it down for whites 46% say they are hopeful versus 35% for black and better than the 18% in 2017. 69% hispanics saying they are more hopeful than 29% in 2017. breakdown what is behind that. guest: i think that just shows the importance and efficacy of politics. it shows young people, they were a significant part of the policies the last year. when we think back through the primary young people overwhelmingly supported bernie sanders. they were disappointed but around st. patrick's day little less than a year ago joe biden said listen, give me an

opportunity. in those days only about one third of young people had a favorable view of him but they gave him a chance and that view is much higher now. it is 54%. then we have the george floyd murder where young people of all races, ethnicities, genders took it upon themselves to call attention to the concerns they had about systemic racism and inequality in this country. and that movement from the streets absolutely turned into movement on election day. young people see that the political institutions were actually listening to them, perhaps for the first time in their lives. i think that goes a long way to explaining why there is so much hope, especially hope among young african-americans and blacks. as you said i think less than one in five four years ago had

hope about the future of our country. today it is closer to seven in 10. that just makes me feel good. i am the dad of three zoomers so when our children are hopeful that should make everyone hopeful. host: our guest with us until the top of the hour and if you would like to ask him questions about the pole, you can call us. we have set aside the lines by age. if you fall 18 to 29, give us a call at (202)-748-8000. if you are between 30 and 50, (202)-748-8001. if you are over 50, (202)-748-8002. text us at (202)-748-8003. when it comes to joe biden himself and his approval ratings, particularly among the younger set, it was those between 18 and 24-year-olds found 58% approval ratings. bump that to 61% among 25 and 29-year-olds.

you saw lower numbers going into it last year. what happened in the meantime? guest: i think for the last four or five years bernie sanders has really kind of passed into half of young democrats. biden and the other folks, it was difficult to kind of connect the ways with young people. 34% favorability rating when year ago and what he did was very basic. i think that is something all of us should do. he said i am listening, i hear you. talk to me about the things that concern you. -- help meet understand so i can empower you. that is essentially what he did on his campaign and slowly, month-to-month over time, that favorability increased from 34%

to where it is today in the mid-50's. frankly, it is the highest approval rating certainly and we have tracked in the course of our 21 years. so far it seems to be paying dividends. the engagement that the campaign had with younger americans. host: among college students you find it was a 61% approval rating in president biden, and 56% even for those not in college or with no degree. guest: to the extent that his numbers are more approved than disapproved, so much of the political standing is driven by younger americans. we are just talking about the 18 to 29-year-olds. millennials go up to the age of 40. when we talking about young

families, we are also talking about millennials. a significant degree of the support for president biden is driven by these two younger generations, millennials and gen z. within that, we talked about the differences between african-americans and hispanics and whites, but the message here is that president biden is making an effort to reach out to young people and they in turn are indicating in other polls that they so far approved of the weight in which he is -- of the way in which he is handling his job. host: you asked the question as the result of the president coming into the office and the people responding i expect my life will be better, worse, no different, not sure, 18 to 49-year-olds say the life will be better. 19% say were spear 25% saying no different -- 19% saying yes, 25%

saying no different. talk about that. guest: the reason that we started the survey two decades ago, it wasn't my idea it was the idea of undergrads, was to understand the disconnect. in those days we had more young people participating in community service than voting and we wanted to understand the disconnect. younger people wanted to understand dan, doesn't are generation understand that with volunteering and voting we can change things faster. so the idea of it making a difference in your life personally and the people you care about, that has always been the most significant driver of political participation. the weight in people -- in which

people -- the way in which people feel and how they tend to participate in politics. 46% of young people whether they voted for him or not or are registered or not believe his ministration alone will make a positive impact in their lives. that is hugely significant. it puts a lot of pressure on the biden administration to make sure they are following up on that because that is the way they will be judged in the midterm elections and the way the administration will be judged in 2020 for as well. host: john della volpe volpe of harvard institute of politics joining us. mike is our next caller. caller: i field i am 50 and feel like i'm very politically engaged. we had -- i am 50 and i feel i

am very politically engaged. there are three women making people matt on one side. nancy pelosi, kamala harris, and dr. biden a professor of education. for republicans, it is a new day in america. host: ok. anything from that? guest: i don't know if i can answer that. host: sam, over 50, you are up. caller: i want to say this period and 70 years old and i worked for a company for 34 years and nine days. it was a union company mostly but i saw what the republican did to unions. it started with ronald reagan. they dismantled the unions which dismantles your pay scale which monitors how and when your

working conditions are. also young people, organize, go to school. this is your golden opportunity to really be successful. be involved in your politics. host: one of those things that you talk about in your polls about political engagement amongst those polled, 36% of everyone 18 to 29 you polled said they consider themselves politically engaged. amongst whites, 36%, hispanics, 34%. how is the engagement showing itself out? guest: i love the fact that we have members of other generations using their experience to pass on in a positive way to younger people. one of the biggest divides we have in this country is the generational divide. i love the sentiment of that last caller. as you noted, we asked you to

self identified and can you see yourself politically engaged. you saw how high it was with whites and blacks and hispanics, the highest in the history of the poll. every piece of data i can look at as a researcher and pollster is that we are essentially at the apex of political engagement for younger people. the u.s. census issued their report and within the population surveyed includes information and statistics of voters. the survey indicated that the highest level of participation among younger americans than i have been tracking for at least 32 years. over 60% of college educated, younger people participated in the last election.

54% of all u.s. citizens between 18 and 29 participated in the election, which is eight points higher than it was four years ago and higher than it was in 2008 when younger people helped elect barack obama. what that means is that when my generation, gen x were young, when baby boomers were young and they had the opportunity to vote, they did not vote at the level of younger people today of our children and grandchildren. another reason i am hopeful they are testing the system enough to engage and try to make a difference where they can. host: this is a text from colorado. i have a sliver of hope for the future but i have issues with the government meddling in the affairs of other countries. i will point you to some of the data you use.

50% of those that you polled say they trust in government some of the time. 19% say never. when it comes to the federal government, only 47 percent say they trust some of the time and 19% never. what does that tell you about trust and -- trust in institutions? guest: trust has been relatively low and getting lower about every year we ask this question. we ask this every spring and do two surveys every year. what i read into that, pedro, is there is not a lot of trust today but there is faith they can change it and government can and should do big things. there is not necessarily a correlation between not trusting the government of today but still believe that government

ought to have a role in certain domestic affairs. also, he did tap into what i hear from a lot of young people is that they have a desire to focus on domestic policy first and try to address some struggles that members of their generation have as well as other pressing issues around health care, mental health, education, climate, we could go on that those should be priorities compared to meddling in others' affairs. perhaps one of the reasons the numbers have gone up is that he is actively withdrawing the troops from f kanas to hand. that would play into what he was referring to. host: here is doug from new

jersey on our line. caller: i see the young voters more politically engaged. i want to ask the question, where are they getting their news source from and i bet you it's overwhelmingly from facebook, let's face it, the democratic media runs 85% to 90% of the media here the younger youth are getting their information, which is wrong and has an agenda, from a lot of these outlets. if you're going to do the pulling, do it fair. thank you. guest: actually, we did ask where people get their news and the number one news source which many folks have found to be surprising and we have asked the question in the past is actually local news. that is still the number one news source for politics and current events among younger americans. not what it was a generation ago

but still the number one news source. by the way, all of the russians and data are available on our website. you can see how the questions were asked and what the responses were. roughly three in 10 get their political news from facebook, lower than it was the last time we ask the question a year ago. what is interesting, i felt, is among younger republicans, those who got their news from facebook , they were significantly more believing that donald won the election than donald trump. there is clearly a threat that we could pick up in our survey to show that facebook has been a distributor of disinformation.

it is a landscape that includes facebook, global news, and dozens of other sources as well. host: you do ask the question, how often do you trust each of these categories to do the right thing. when it comes to facebook 39% said never in 39% said some of the time. on twitter, 35% said it never and 43% said some of the time. guest: 35% to 39% never, ever trust facebook and twitter to do the right thing. you add in some of the time and never you get closer to three quarters. in fact there is more trust, pedro, in police and every other institution in the survey then there is with facebook and twitter right now. younger people actually believe

that unless they can clean up their act in terms of taking down misinformation and things that are fairly false, then they believe the government ought to play a more significant role in regulation. host: 35% of those saying they trust police most of the time, 33% for the u.s. military. was this taken around the george floyd trial ended that factor into these responses in these categories? guest: the pole was actually taken -- poll was taken a month before the trial, in the middle of march. it was a factor -- the floyd case was in the news over the course of the last almost year, but nine so months before march.

i don't think it was as prominent as it was when we released the poll toward the end of april. host: let's go to sheila in ohio. the ages 30 to 50 category. hello. caller: i just want to kind of piggyback on what the other caller said but really just say something more along the lines of, on a personal level what i have noticed is, i don't know that i would buy all of this that kids are more hopeful and biden is oh so great and all of the other stuff because me personally, four years ago i would have voted democrat. after all of the violence and learning and seeing how information is skewed and

whatnot, i ended up switching the parties because of my distrust of the news media, my lack of hope or faith in where the country was going under an administration by biden. younger people might have that view, i think as they age and they actually start to pay for things -- biden promised them the world, of course they will have faith in him. as they actually see what that means that nothing comes for free and they have to pay for things, that is when you would see how people say, wait a second, i might not have so much faith in what we are doing as a country and where we are moving, because as i started to learn and educate myself, my mind has been blown wide open. host: thank you, color --

caller. guest: we are talking about 18 to 29-year-olds. we have historically high numbers. 20 percent, 30%, 40%, almost half of young whites don't approve of the current administration. i do believe that these values and attitudes in the voting behavior that young people are developing and then practicing in their early lives will stay with them. as we talked about, the two most consistently blue voting groups are millennials and gen z.

to the extent that biden is connecting with his generation -- with these generations and responding to things they care about will go a long way as they mature. some of them might spin off to be independents or republicans or switch come of course, but young people do not wake up at the age of 30, 40, 50, by and large, and flip their values or the things they care about. the other thing i would like to mention is young people do pay for things. they pay for a lot of things. for example, when i conduct focus groups with my students in new hampshire or toronto and we ask people what it's like to be a younger person and what concerns them, the fact that they have a good job in their town, whether a blue-collar job or white-collar job and a half to resort to finding three of her roommates to afford an apartment.

young people know what that is like. back in the 1960's, 1970's, and early 1980's, it was not unreasonable for a person to work a full-time summer job to pay for a year of tuition at a college, actually a private college in the 1970's or public, you could work one summer. it would take years to do that to pay for one year of tuition at a private college today. i think young people know very well what it's like to pay for things. in many ways, that is what is shaping their values and how they think about politics. host: you asked people to agree or disagree with some of these statements, 56% this year said that politics has become too partisan, that versus 46% in 2010. guest: that can't be a surprise to anyone, can it?

despite that, despite the rise in partisanship, pedro, we started talking about how much hope there is. there is concern about a lack of trust in institutions. there is concern about the partisanship, but one of the overarching messages from this poll, and this is part of analysis that our students led is that they have hope in each other that as they engage, as they enter politics and whether that's holy or just following the issues -- wholly or just following the issues, they will trust each other and had left partisanship. there is more partisanship reflected in the numbers, but the good news is they can see

the reflection of their engagements and that is what is keeping them engaged. we saw hi partisanship and if we saw no care about issues, thankfully we are not seeing that. host: let's hear from gail in west terre haute, indiana. caller: the reason i wanted to call was because talking about young people in politics, i feel like that ought to hold offices. i have been around politics all of my life and the people holding offices were always 60, 70, 80-year-olds. i want to see young people holding offices. be not every office. overall, we need overall ages. why don't college kids go in and run for offices?

we have a college grandson and he's very politically active. i know one of his comments was, i don't like paying $300 or $400 an hour at class to learn about this and i have a high energy political instructor who wants to force his views on me and i told him, then get out there and do something about it. i would like to see more 25-year-olds holding offices. we need their views. i don't want to push out everybody of age, because like i'm in my 70's, i can't explain to a 25-year-old how it is to be in my body, but we can exchange ideas. i have experience. i have just the energy and we need more of what they can give.

host: thanks, gail. guest: i wholeheartedly endorse gayle's perspective. when you look at congress, as a generation of belen nichols -- of millennials, it is a complicated issue. the cost of running a campaign a political campaign in terms of the wealth of the persons network one needs. obviously aoc from the progressive left a couple cycles ago showed you don't need to come from wealth, but that was you and far between. there are a lot of barriers for younger people running for offices on a federal level, but i agree that young people should be interested in serving on the

school board if they have a perspective for the council or those sorts of things. in fact, one of our students in a survey actually is running for office in his own town in massachusetts. he is running for city council. it is an uphill battle but he is putting his hat in the ring because he cares so much about things in his town. i would also note that one of the first students to work on this particular survey ran as a young person and today he is the secretary of transportation. his name is pete buttigieg. he worked on the survey with us and he is a perfect example of serving your community and country whether it is the military and now national politics. host: this is robbie in missouri. caller: i think president biden is doing the right thing. he is making it about policy while trump only mate it's all

about himself and there was no policy. it was all me, me, me, and i think it was the biggest waste of four years america has ever seen under trump. i am so glad we are making up for the wasted years. if you did what you did in america and europe, people are more generally satisfied. do you know why? because they do far more for their people than we do for people in america and they pay for everything. this notion that people get something for free is all wrong. they pay a much higher rate of taxes and the satisfaction with the government is far better than what it is here. president biden, keep it up, you are doing the right thing. host: that is robbie in missouri. guest: one of the interesting things about this survey, pedro, is we have been able to see how opinions have evolved and changed over the last 21 years.

over the last decade, 12 years or so, there are questions we ask as attitudinal questions around their view of government. there are also some social issues as well. what we found was that on every question about the role of government over the last decade, specifically the last four or five years, we have seen support for a stronger, more robust government, whether that is to help people in poverty, to help alleviate climate change even at the expense of business on affirmative action and attacking systemic racism and health-care, on a variety of issues, but we have seen a significant shift towards the left over the course of the last 10 years, most happening in the last five

years. as they enter their teens and 20's, they are responding to what they see. so they can see the effect of the trump administration and they are therefore forming their own opinions. i think trump has had a very significant effect and the reason young people today are more progressive than they were before trump also more likely to vote and participate than they were before trump. there is a trump effect and one of them is that i think donald trump helped ignite or engage a significant number of young people in politics. host: we only have a minute or so. steve in maryland, go ahead. caller: i went to college in 1969 to 1973 during one the

heights of political activism in this country. i went to boston college but my dad dropped out of school when he was 16, had to go off and fight world war ii. he fought real fascists. compare that to our young people, we have antifa. i ended up joining the army in 1979. i was in the intel community. i fought the cold war and against marxism. i seats today the activists come and i will call them out, black lives matter is a marxist front -- i see today the activists, and i will call them out, black lives matter is a marxist front. host: we are running out of time make your point. caller: my plate is how educated of the political activists of today? -- my point is how educated are the political activists of today? guest: talking about younger

people, we talked about the most educated generation in america. there is a lot of anxiety and mental health changes they carry with them. they are channeling the fears and passions to changing america and domestic terrorism among younger people is also a significant concern. host: if people are interested in learning more about the poll, where would you send them? guest: it is available at our website. it is right near the front page. host: this is john della volpe of harvard politics talking about their poll. thanks for your time with us. guest: thank you very much. host: the house is coming in for a pro forma session and that is about to take place in just a

fe