following the promise of additional federal funding from the covid-19 bill. join in on the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text, and tweets. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning and welcome to the washington journal. another mass shooting in the u.s. is bringing about another conversation about the proliferation of guns in this country. the shooter in the latest tragedy reportedly has an arsenal and at 25,000 rounds in his california home as he killed nine coworkers earlier this week. lawmakers are pushing for more legislation, but a closely divided senate making things unlikely. that is our question. do you think more regulation of

guns is needed? if you think there should be more regulation of guns, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. if you don't think more gun laws are needed, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure or you need more information, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us your answer at (202) 748-8003 . we are always reading on social media, on twitter at @cspanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. we are wondering what you think about whether we need more gun regulations in america following the most recent gun shooting in california. there has been legislation passed already by the house, but some of it is still sitting, waiting in the senate.

i want to talk to you about the legislation sitting in front of congress right now before we begin. this story is coming from the atlanta constitution journal. "legislation affecting guns is one of the nation's most partisan, polarized issues, as evidenced by the two bills voted on in the house but that will face opposition in the senate. the first bill would expand background checks to those purchasing weapons over the internet, at gun shows and in certain private transactions. eight republicans joined democrats in backing the bill. the second bill passed to 19-2-10 -- 219-210, with two republicans joining.

it would give authorities 10 business days for federal background checks to be completed." those are sitting before congress right now after the shooting that happened in california earlier this week. the president has said he wants gun violence reduced in this country and will plan on moving some legislation through the congress to see if he can get that done. here is what president biden said. "i have the solemn duty yet again of ordering the flag to be lowered at half-staff this week after doing so following the mass shooting at spas around atlanta. in a grocery store in boulder, a home in rock hill, and a fedex facility in indianapolis. i urge congress to take

immediate action and heed the call of the american people, including the vast majority of gun owners, to end this epidemic of gun violence. every life taken by a bullet pierces the soul of our nation. we can and must do more." i do recent hearing on gun violence, general adler, cheer and ranking member of the judiciary committee, spoke about the call for gun legislation. here is what representative nadler had to say. [video clip] rep. nadler: one of the critical differences is that other countries have stronger gun safety laws. the bipartisan background check bill will help close the charleston loophole. the house has done its part. it is time for of republicans to pass so that they may become

law. i hope this panel will examine other reasonable measures to help prevent gun violence, extreme risk protection orders. these laws allow law enforcement to ask a court to prevent a person with a risk of violence to their self or others from possessing a firearm. they provide evidence during an ex parte hearing in which a neutral judge ways whether -- judge weighs whether a threat is imminent. rep. jordan: think about what democrats want to do. demonizing our law enforcement officers and defunding police to the tune of a billion dollars in

major cities. crime is up in every major city. step two, release violent offenders from prison. chairman nadler introduced a bill last year to pay states and localities to pay states and municipalities to release offenders from jail. in other words, it is ok to release inmates as long as they did not pose a risk to a specific individual. step three, the third part, take away guns from law-abiding americans so they cannot defend themselves. this hearing today and the numerous bills introduced by our democratic colleagues show that

they want to deprive americans of their constitutional rights. host: to paul, calling from lexington, kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: i am fine. caller: i don't have any question but i do want to kind of -- i talked to my representative from here in kentucky, and i have hunted my entire life. i was an nar member. i have my carry and conceal permit. we need to do away, first of all -- no more automatic and semiautomatic weapons are sold. those that have guns, i don't want to take their guns away from them, but they have to have a three chamber limit.

it has been that way forever for some guns. you can only put three shells in a gun. and if you are caught with a gun that isn't that way, it is confiscated. it is illegal. and that gets rid of all these 18 and 38 caliber -- or chambered -- guns. host: i am sure we will hear this several times this morning, but what do you say to people that say that the criminals will not pay attention to those regulations? they will just do what they want to. caller: they have to be destroyed. no more. and i don't want to take anybody's gun away from them, but you cannot go out deer hunting with an ar-15 or an

ak-47. there's no sport to that. and you are not doing that. that's not what those weapons were designed for and that is not what they should be used for. host: let's go to daniel, calling from washington, d.c. good morning. caller: thank you. please repeat the wording of the second amendment. the subject is a well regulated militia in, what, 1790? they were talking about arming organizations of the community or the state and well regulating them. there wasn't a single weapon like the power and the multiple deaths that these weapons are capable of. the second amendment, read it, does not

include in any way, if you can read the language, an individual's right to bear arms. it is a militia. and america is such a coward they got the supreme court to change that. just like we had manifest destiny so we could commit genocide all the way to the philippines, we make things up when it is convenient for our cowardly people to arm themselves. they are cowards. host: daniel, what do you think should be done? caller: america digs itself so deep into a hole that is almost impossible to get out. anybody who is not a coward should be revoking their arms, abide by the constitution. let's start there. the constitution does not give anyone the individual right to

bear arms. host: let's go to john, calling from culpeper, virginia. good morning. caller: in my lifetime -- i am 63 -- i have never seen so much killing, mass killing, and people killing people who are crazy. republicans and democrats should get together and make better gun laws. host: give us an example of what you think a better gun law should say. caller: take the background of people, take the guns from them, and if you find them with a gun and they shouldn't have one, lock them up. host: let's go to heather, calling from milwaukee, wisconsin. good morning. are you there? good morning. caller: good morning morning.

this is heather in milwaukee. host: good morning. caller: how are you, jesse? thank you for c-span. i have been living in milwaukee, wisconsin, originally from madison, wisconsin. i live in the most segregated part milwaukee. there's actually a documentary about it if anyone wants to check it out. i have been sitting in my living room hearing gunshots next door. there's a lot of violence, a lot of a very, very poor neighborhood. i don't have a lot of money. i am a social worker. i care very much about my community. i have lobbied or advocated at my state capital about gun violence. when it is next door to you, almost in your face, it is a different story. we need stronger laws.

as a social worker, social justice -- i am shaking here -- the reason i became a social worker was for causes that are important, but the biggest thing for me is that i worry about the children. host: i will ask you to send question i asked earlier in the show. the opponents of any new gun regulations will say the criminals are not going to pay attention to those regulations anyway. all you are doing is putting restrictions on law-abiding citizens. what would be your response to that? caller: i will say we need systemic change and the biggest factor in my mind that relates to gun violence is poverty and we need to look at how we are treating each other. how do you define a criminal? i mean, we are more than the worst thing we have ever done, but i believe people walking

around with guns, including the police sometimes, that this has been fair. i believe we need stronger gun laws and i think that joe biden has proposed over the years, not just recently, but has fought quite hard, when he was vice president, to protect the citizens. not everybody is walking around with a gun. i have never touched a gun. i don't ever want to. i think we need to care about each other more. host: let's go to patrick, calling from roseburg, oregon. good morning. caller: good morning. frankly, we have lots of laws on the books, but i am thinking maybe we should have a responsibility act put in or a law put in on gun ownership. when you buy a gun, it has numbers on it.

and when you buy a gun, it should have a slip of paper where you acknowledge what it is that you are buying and the damage it can do and the responsibilities of owning it. host: patrick, if you passed that type of responsibility act, who? would it apply to? are you applying it only to citizens, the police and military? who would you apply the law to? caller: anybody buying a gun. the military and law enforcement, i think, are different things, but i am talking about the civilian population. i'm a good overbite so -- i am a gun owner myself. when you buy a gun, i think you should acknowledge it is a dangerous thing, there a responsibility to owning it, and

if you leave it laying out in your bedroom and your child gets a hold of it, takes it to school and kills people with it or whatever, then there should be some liability to the person who bought that gun and, you know -- for, jesus, i am 70 years old now, and on november 2, 1957, i was shot in the chest by a friend of mine. i raised four boys and none of my guns ever got into their hands. they were under lock and key. i took the responsibility and privilege of owning a gun very seriously, and i think that there's a good cause today well, if you buy a car, you have to buy insurance. you also have to have a drivers license in order to operate the vehicle legally. well, if you buy a gun, you

should be responsible for that gun winds up. host: let's go to alan from kennewick, washington. good morning. caller: i think it is kind of funny. i think it is kind of funny that biden and all these people are worrying about guns when him and holder and obama let 2500 guns go to the mexican drug cartels. if they want to enforce the laws, all they have to do is enforce the laws. host: that brings up the same question i have asked a couple of times this show. how do you get the laws to apply to criminals who are not paying attention to the current regulations and laws? caller: put them in jail. enforce the ones that we have got. and if you want to add to gun

control, make it an automatic 20 year sentence if you commit a crime with a gun, not if you shoot it, just if you hold somebody up and threaten them with it, rob them, 20 years if you use a gun. that would stop it. host: let's go to stephen, calling from south carolina. good morning. caller: [indiscernible] host: stephen, are you there? let's go to thomas, calling from wichita, kansas. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i fully support the statement of the gentleman from kentucky. i served in the u.s. army. i fired fully automatic weapons, the most terrible weapons conceived by the mind of man. i fully support the right of the people to keep and bear arms,

but that should be restricted to bolt, pump and lever action long guns and revolvers or semiautomatics that have restrictions on the amount of ammo in their magazines. and i have the solution as to the argument that only criminals will have the automatic weapons. i have the solution for that. fire between 1500 and 2000 more special agents at the u.s. bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. you watch. before two more months go by when we have another mass killing. thank you for your time and good luck to everybody out there. host: this week, the senate held a hearing on federal legislation modeled on a connecticut state law that would require loaded guns to be stored if minors are present. it features the head of a firearms trade association.

here's some of the exchange from tuesday. [video clip] >> we are talking about a proactive approach to educating people. many of these laws would only come into effect after the tragedy has occurred. we are trying to prevent these things. it is more important to prevent a tragedy than to deal with the pieces afterwards, because what prosecutor will prosecute the family of a child killed by one of their guns? it is difficult to do so. we are trying to get ahead of the curve, educate people on what we believe to be best practice on keeping gun safely, but recognizing there are different circumstances from household to household and state to state, so we are looking at it from perhaps a different perspective. there is common ground, but there are issues where we would not be comfortable. >> but -- has not supported the law and doesn't today. >> i don't know. >> you represent that organization. >> i do. >> you speak for it today.

would you support things law today? -- support ethan's law today? >> are you asking whether the organization would've formatively -- organization would have formatively supported it during legislation? >> it was opposing it. >> you may be confused -- >> i'm talking about connecticut. >> in connecticut? the law in connecticut we believe went too far in some instances. we support safe storage. that's the reason i am here. >> i am asking you about ethan's law in connecticut, which you opposed, correct? now, you thought it went too far. and i welcome your being willing to talk to us here at the federal level about the specifics as you have indicated,

but i think it is important to recognize that, even at the state level, despite your testimony here today, you opposed it then. have you supported safe storage laws in any state? >> we do opposed mandates for safe storage. we do support education and training. we support the safe storage of firearms. where we get concerned is the government mandates and penalties imposed on gun owners, so the short answer is no, but we do believe there is common ground, which is why we advocate for safe storage. >> the common ground is the same common ground you have on seatbelts, where we agree seatbelts are important and necessary, and by the same logic, you would a -- you would oppose a mandate for seatbelts, for other public safety measures. host: let's see what our social media followers are saying about whether we need more regulation

of guns in the u.s. a post from facebook says "no. gun regulations only hurt law-abiding citizens. criminals don't obey laws." a text that says "published crime scene photos -- published crime scene photos from the carnage of every mass shooting. once americans see the damage weapons of war because, they will demand change." but suite that says "civilians should not be walking around with the sole weapons -- with assault weapons." another that says "i voted for democrats in congress to change legislation on guns, but it doesn't seem to matter. discouraged." another that says "if we can get people to the surface of mars in 10 years, why can't we create a safer gun and a weapon that is traceable to the original manufacturer and hold them

responsible?" one last tweet that says "we need more gun regulations but it is far too late with more guns and more people. if you want to leave in a peaceful country, america is not it." do you think more regulations of guns is needed? let's go back to our phone lines and talk to charles, calling from richmond, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i think what is difficult is to see people walking around with guns. the national rifle association, which i tried to join when i was a young man, they say that the good guy has the gun and the good guy will compensate for the bad guy, but here is the problem -- it was the bad guy? a lot of arguments get started

and people reach for guns, older people especially. it is ridiculous. look at the history here. you will find that the army didn't really want the ar because it is a 22 caliber. it is not even a decent caliber for killing human beings. it tears tissue. which is another subject. if you want to go shooting, go to the shooting range, and you could get your ammunition there, which is another subject. walmart, several years ago, they didn't have .38 specials, nine millimeter, 22 caliber, and there wasn't that many killings.

but the regulation on ammunition, because people are going to have guns. they're going to have these cheap guns they buy at the gun store or gun show. they can only shoot them so many times before they jam up. people buy cheap guns. if you want a .222 ar -- what is it? -- sig, they will cost you. host: let's go to jerry, from beltsville, maryland. caller: more regulation needed, but i don't think there will be more regulation because the money involved in politics. i know people that have had guns. the problem is not the regulation. we need a task force to find out where the guns are coming front.

-- coming from. when i was coming up in d.c., i knew people who had guns hidden in the walls and sold them to people. as long as we have that, we will never stop this fountain of guns. as far as regulations, we need it, but it is not going to happen. they need to build a task force to go and find out who is selling guns to individuals on the street. that's all i have to say. host: let's go to larry, calling from odenton, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. am i on? just making sure you can hear me. host: go ahead. caller: i have to agree with the last caller. i think a couple of issues, one, is this issue of gun control is sparked from emotion.

we see large groups of people being killed using a weapon and so of course as human beings that pains us because we don't want to see people hurt. we don't want to see our family hurt, the potential for our family to be hurt, and that's real and valid, but my concern is will this legislation fix the issue? and what i mean is i heard someone talking about, or an earlier caller saying, hey, we need to care about each other more. i heard another caller mention we need responsibility legislation. i think we try to legislate things that are legislation issues. the people who are committing these acts -- it is not that they have a gun. there's an issue with that person, which is a deeper issue, and not to go too far-left, but if i take all the people who have committed these mass shootings and i take away their

gun, we didn't solve a problem because whatever it was inside of that person that was prompting them to do that is still in them, so maybe they don't have a gun, but whatever it is and that person, mental illness, is still there, so we can celebrate we have a gun law -- if that makes any sense. i am originally from baltimore city. the mass shootings that happen where i am from are not responsible citizens with guns. these are people getting guns illegally. i heard the last caller. where is the legislation for helping us in our cities find out where these illegal guns are coming from? host: let's go to steve, calling from columbia, south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. let's clear out the second amendment thing. it refers to a militia being

necessary, but that is in article two. if people would just read article 1, 2 and three. as for the militia, it is stated somewhere else. it is just saying a state needs a militia. i have the right to protect myself. read the intent, not just the word. the militia is referred to in article two, heavily, and the military. so article two is just about the individual's right. that's it. thanks. host: let's go to nicholas -- let's go to leonard, calling from south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i think that guns should only be sold by the federal government to military and police and people should have guns for

themselves in the home for protection if that is what they want, but the crooks -- i mean, the criminal element shouldn't be allowed to have guns and they can purchase them from the federal government -- they cannot purchase them from the federal government, and all the other guns on the street, there should be some form of confiscation. host: we had a couple callers in the last few calls talk about gun regulations as well as mental health. let's go to the los angeles times and read a little bit about what was actually going on with the man who shot up his workplace in california earlier this week. "after a mass shooting that left nine workers at a valley transportation authority railyard in san jose dead, authorities are trying to understand why and how the

gunmen committed the attack. -- the gunman committed the attack. evidence has painted the assailant, 57-year-old single cassidy, as a disgruntled worker who hated his job. authorities say a search of his home, which was burned in a fire that coincided with wednesday shooting, uncovered gasoline, suspected molotov cocktails, firearms, and a 25,000 rounds of ammunition. santa -- so that's coming from the los angeles times. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to john, who is calling from watsonville, california. john, good morning. caller: high.

the second amendment literally says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that is literally what it means. it doesn't say the right of the militia. it doesn't say the right of the government. it doesn't say the right of the sore head who wants to let you have a gun that only he approves of. let me put it to you this way. this is how i see things. juan, if you are going to do this to the second amendment -- one, if you are going to do this to the second amendment, apply it to the first amendment. we have had damages and injuries and deaths because of protests. you want to do that to guns? do it to protests. you are going to need to pass a background check, buy a stamp to

ensure that whatever damage you do during a protest gets paid for. let's put all this on the first amendment. host: john, how would you define the word armed in that sense? can armed mean any weapon? caller: it means any weapon, anything from a hammer to a knife to a gun to anything, and anyone who says it only applies to muskets, then the first amendment doesn't apply to the internet, the radio or the television that you are on right now. you guys sound like loons to me. host: assault weapons, tanks, anything bigger than guns and semiautomatic weapons? caller: you mean like do i want an atomic bomb? that's a silly argument, a crazy argument. host: but how do you define the word arms then? caller: i just told you.

anything you can use to defend yourself, to arm yourself, is an arm. look it up. don't try to play games. you can own a machine gun in the u.s. you pretend like you can't. just buy a stamp. it costs a lot of money and you have to do a background check, but it is illegal because the second amendment says it shall not be infringed -- but it is not illegal because the second amendment says it shall not be infringed. host: let's go to rob. good morning. caller: i am here to reiterate a lot of what previous callers have said. we seem to be focused on the how and not the why. if you look through history, most of the deaths in the world have been caused by conflict over religion or people feeling

insulted, disrespected, so if we could review what they are teaching in a church, synagogue, or mosque, and control speech. we could establish a list of hate words and ban those words, limit our speech in an orwellian fashion, but if we do that -- and this is all tongue and cheek -- we can eliminate the why and have a safer world if we just control religion and speech. host: let's go to sergio, calling from schenectady, new york. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. a couple points. if you look at the data, there

is a criminal element in every major civilized country that we have on this planet, but there's not a murder rate there that we see from guns because there's gun legislation that restricts access to guns. there's mental health issues and all these other countries around the world. they have mental health issues like we have in the u.s. what's the difference? they have saying gun legislation to restrict access to guns to their citizens. the second point i would like to make is this discussion i had with my son yesterday. i said over these last 30, 40, 50 years, what have we seen? always the answer when we have these mass shooting events is that we have to have more guns, more guns, more guns, more guns. it is always the answer we get when we ask how we solve this problem. my answer to my son was, you know, you are graduating from high school this year.

maybe it is finally time in this country that we realize we have to try another approach. thank you very much for your time, c-span. thank you. host: let's go to kevin, calling from springfield, massachusetts. two morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i listened this morning and i cannot believe the number of people, to me, i see -- i listen who are extremely naive. they forget the intent or don't know the intent of the second amendment and why it was written when it was written. it was written to protect the individual citizen from the taranto government that may ensue -- from the tyrannical government that may ensue. i am not a historian, someone from academia.

i am just a regular person. millions of people have been murdered by their own governments in the past 100, , 200, 300 years because they control the people. the government is the one you have to worry about with all the guns, not the people. yes, crime is an issue. some people should never have access to guns, but the real intent, as this gentleman spoke of a minute ago, is the right of the people to have firearms, and it shall not be infringed. it doesn't mean partially infringed, deciding what we can can i have, because now you have the government that wrote the amendment to protect you from telling you what you can use to protect yourself from them. it is not just about crime. and if people know anything about crime statistics, they will know that there's an estimate -- it is difficult to

define exactly the amount -- but well over one million people each year who protect themselves because they had access to a firearm that some people think they shouldn't have. host: kevin, where are you getting that statistic from? caller: you can get it at many different places. you can find those statistics. they exist. the people never seem to discuss those people that protect themselves because they had access to a firearm. it is not about hunting. it is not about three shells in a shotgun to go bird hunting. it is about an individual, to be able to protect themselves. host: let's talk to marie, calling from michigan. marie, did i pronounce the name correctly there? are you there? i think we lost marie.

let's go to paul, calling from north las vegas, nevada. two morning. -- good morning. can you hear me? caller: i think we -- host: you are there. caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: this is the u.s. supreme court decision in 1989, cheney versus winnebago county department of social services. in that case, the supreme court said the defense of any individual is the responsibility of the individual, not the government and not the police. now it is very unfortunate that with all the shootings taking place, firearms are not permitted where they are happening.

i am a gun owner but if there is a place where i cannot take a firearm, that means that if someone comes in with the intention of committing a heinous act, i have no way to defend myself. in san jose, those individuals, if they were gun owners, could not take their gun into the location they were working, and this individual new that. -- knew that. host: one of your contentions might not be completely correct. we have a list of the mass shootings that took place just this year in the u.s. california is one of the places they have happened, but they have also happened in colorado, texas, north carolina and south carolina. caller: writes -- right, but california has the most restrictive -- let me put it this way. the laws they want to implement

at the federal level to prevent gun violence already exist in their entirety in the state of california and did not prevent the mass shooting that took place. host: what would you say about what happened in oklahoma, texas and colorado? they don't have those laws and they happened there as well. caller: correct. this is my bottom line. everybody has the right to life. nobody has the right to take it, but if i don't have the means to protect myself when someone wants to do or connect a heinous act, then i have no way to stop it. does everyone need to carry a gun? that's their choice. if they don't want to, that's fine, but if you are there and that evil individual is there and you call the cops, you are waiting, but you are with the individual and only you can stop it, and if you don't have a

weapon to do it, they will commit that act. that is all i have to say. host: let's go to trevor, who is calling from mesa, arizona. good morning. caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: it is actually robert in mesa, arizona. i want to correct one item that i have heard repeatedly misstated. the second amendment states in the primary clause, the first sentence, a well regulated militia, which means the state's national guard. it does not mean antigovernment militias. those are completely illegal. the government is what is being protected here, your community and government, because we did not have a standing army when this was created. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. that's correct, but that's the

secondary clause, subordinate to the first clause, meaning pretty much, if you want to go around and you want to defend your community from an overarching federal government, he joined the national guard -- government, you join the national guard. i am a combat veteran. i have firearms. and in arizona, i can walk around with it completely unconcealed anywhere on the street and in most places, like in bars and things like that, i have to check it at the door. other places, i cannot go into, like state government buildings, libraries, schools. for obvious reasons. my personal belief and what i have posted many times and discussed with my representatives is we need to have quantico level urban combat

course training requirements if you wish to carry a firearm outside of your house. if you hit one end -- hit one innocent individual target -- these are pop-ups. they look like humans. if you hit one innocent, you have to redo the entire six week course, which includes laws of win and when -- when and when you cannot use a firearm. someone cuts you off in traffic. you cannot pull out a firearm. host: let's go to marshall, who is calling from anderson, alabama. marshall, good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead, marshall. caller: i believe a person has a right to defend his home, his family, from any intrusion, from

anybody outside that area trying to do damage to them personally. they should have the right to be able to stop that, not necessarily to go around and carry a gun, intimidating people, but it should have the right to defend themselves if attacked. host: at a recent house hearing on gun violence, representative and chair sheila jackson lee of texas questioned the father who lost his child at the stoneman douglas high school shooting in 2018. here is a little of that exchange. [video clip] >> we know that in the sandy hook tragedy, guns were stored, but accessible, and tragically, babies lost their life. you can speak to that and as well the idea of family fire combined together, where children are harmed. and i know that you are well

aware of those of us who believe in banning assault weapons and continue to push for that. >> well, thank you. and, you know, you just highlighted some examples. we do know exactly what happened. we know why though shootings happened. and where we are today is sitting in a hearing where there's a lot of people in this room who don't want to acknowledge the facts about what we know about what happened. listen, you can be a second amendment advocate and want to save lives, ok? just so everyone in this room knows, my father-in-law owns a gun. my son has been shooting with him. my best friend is a law enforcement officer who identified my daughter's dead body. so i listen to this room and i hear all of these examples of reasons why some people refuse

to take any action to save lives. it is infuriating, because while we are here -- like i said in my opening statement, someone is getting shot. and we know the reasons why and we know it is going to happen again because we continue to not take action and there is no -- listen, nobody is talking about anything other than steps to predictably save lives, background checks, the end family fire program, safe storage. in 2005, you passed a bill that required state storage of devices, and you know what? you should extend that. this isn't rocket science. i just want to let everyone know, my daughter had rights. my daughter had rights to grow up, to live, to maybe be a second amendment activist. my daughter had a right to go to

school, to go to college, to get married, to make me a grandparent, and that will never happen. the more we sit around having bs arguments, the more you will have conversations like this. let's do this. let's work together to save lives. and honestly, i hope we do. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about whether we need more regulation of guns. here's one text that says "there are special permits to own automatic weapons. couldn't we do a special permit tone assault rifles -- permit to own assault rifles?" another that says "no one needs the type of weapons we have in america. there is no way to distinguish a mentally ill person. listening to callers reaffirms that we are on a path to self-destruction." another text says "morgan laws

denies the real problem -- more gun laws denies the real problem, mental illness." "that 10 day waiting period to buy a gun makes sense. let's use common sense." back to the phone lines. let's talk to maria, calling from atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning morning. how are you? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i don't think america is trying to stop gun laws. what is going to stop this whole thing is no guns like other countries, and if you don't do that, we will be back on this program for months and years to come. as far as the second amendment, i think all of that needs to be shredded and done over. that's the only way this going to stop. it has nothing to do with mental illness, single fathers, drugs.

there's no guns. if there's no guns, we will be back on this program. they are not trying to stop it. it is all about money. host: while there is federal legislation being looked at in washington, d.c., states are doing their own things when it comes to guns. i want to show you a map of different laws in the u.s. going state-by-state when it comes to concealed carry. all 50 states and d.c. allow the concealed carry of firearms, but 31 states and d.c. require permits and have may issue or shall issue permit laws. 18 other states have constitutional carry laws, but will issue permits upon request. vermont has constitutional carry laws but does not issue permits. in texas, they are working on a new lower right now that will

soon -- a new log right now that will soon go to the governor's desk. i want to read you a story about the new law. "a measure sought by activists allowing texans to carry handguns without a license is on the cusp of becoming law after the senate approved a compromise on the bill monday, sending it to the governor. ada has said he will sign the proposal into law -- greg abbott has said he will sign the proposal into law. just before midnight sunday, the house approved a bill passed behind closed doors in an 82-62 vote. the senate approved the bill monday in a 17-13 vote. it would makes the requirement for texas resident -- it would nix the requirement for texas residents to have a permit to

carry a handgun. that bill expected to be signed soon by governor greg abbott." let's talk to nancy, calling from cedar falls, iowa. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, there should be more gun regulations. other countries that have strict gun control don't have problems with mass shootings to the extent of the u.s., and, as a mental health advocate, being a mental health pierce support specialist and a member of an organization, all people that are mentally ill are not violent. many of the mask shooters have some kind of mental health issue and that is the point i want to make. host: let's talk to ben, calling from grenada, mississippi. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: just fine.

go ahead, ben. caller: i think they have a -- they have enough laws on the books. my problem is you have a right to carry a gun, but certain people have a gun, the police see them, they shoot them, and they don't ask questions. they don't ask them if they have a permit. everybody has the right to carry a gun, so why are some who carry a gun kill because they have it? they don't be pointing it at the police. they don't be firing it at the police. they just have it. they get shot. can anyone answer that question? host: let's go to brandon, calling from florida. good morning. caller: hello. good morning. thank you for hosting this debate. i greatly appreciate it. i think we have the right to defend ourselves and we should never have that right infringed

upon, especially if you look at the current times today with all the other changes that the current administration is looking to make. i am talking about critical race theory, transgenderism and a lot of these other radical ideas coming in, the last thing we need is more gun laws. there's thousands of gun laws in place. if you look at the gun crimes being committed, a lot of the time, it was people who work mentally challenged -- people that were mentally challenged. the people are allowing for these heavy metals in drugs they are prescribing to people. what about the gaming industry? what about these videogames that we are brainstorming -- brainwashing our kids with? you go around corners, shoe people, get points -- corners,

shoot people, get points for these activities. look at chicago. what is going on in the south part of chicago every weekend. there are thousands per year and hundreds every month of shootings in south chicago, but the mainstream media doesn't cover that. they don't -- host: let's go to dennis, calling from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i am just sitting back taking it in. it is good to get informed about everybody's opinion. i am glad i could listen to it. i agree with what the guy said just before me about how many people there are getting shot in the cities. adults shoot each other. they make a choice to do that. but children getting in the -- but children getting shot in, that's ridiculous. 9/11 happened and there was no

shot shot but americans died. if someone wants to do something bad, they will do it regardless of whether they have guns, airplanes, cars, trucks, bombs. we have a right to protect ourselves, but when they are starting to kill the children in the streets, people need to wake up and the news media needs to report this stuff because that's the real laws, the children -- the real loss, the children. host: let's go to maurice in arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i am against gun control because i live in the south and i've have been reading different things about arkansas, a massacre, and the reason for it is they had no guns.

gun control will be used against minorities in this country because white people can have anything they want. regulation will stop with just regulating black people or anybody who is nonwhite. that is the reason i am against gun control. host: we would like to thank all of our callers who called in for that segment. coming up next, the winners and losers in president biden's fiscal year 2022 budget with yuval rosenberg of, and our -- yuval rosenberg of the national times, and later, erin durkin on the medicaid expansion. we will be right back. >> this morning at 10:00 a.m. on c-span, a field trip to washington, d.c., visiting the capital, supreme court, martin

luther king jr. memorial in the white house. this is in cooperation with jill biden. >> i want to show you this. as you can see in the distance is the washington monument and the jefferson memorial. it is one of the most beautiful views of all of the city. think of how any presidents have stood in this spot and looked out. and, this is where my husband joe and i stood the night of his inauguration to see the fireworks, and we's -- and we felt so welcome to the office. >> at each stop, children from military families ask questions. >> i am in the seventh grade, what can i see in the air and space museum that i cannot see anywhere else? >> fields with -- field trip to washington, d.c. this morning. you can view it on c-span, c-span.org or on the radio app. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we are back and here with yuval rosenberg, the agile -- editor and chief of "fiscal times." here is -- he is here to help explain the new budget for the white house. good morning. break it down, what are the highlights of the new budget coming from president biden? guest: the budget itself does not -- there is not a lot that is really new, but it ties together a lot with president biden's announced plans, his family plan and previously announced increases that he wants to see in normal annual spending. but, combined what it really does is showcase just how the president is making a big bet on figure government, what he is doing is proposing to increase spending, to increase taxes, and

do it all with the goal of reshaping the economy and what the white house says is that they are looking to prepare the american economy and have it that are able to compete with countries like china for the long term. host: let us talk about some of the numbers. so what we have seen is that they are talking about 8.2 trillion in total spending by 2031. 6 trillion in spending for fiscal year 2022. 1.5 2 trillion in discretionary spending. one trillion in deficits for the next decade keep. those seem like a lot -- big numbers with defense spending going up 1.7 percent. all those numbers completely out of whack of what we says -- what we expect from a white house budget? guest: the white house is saying that they essentially want to try to invest in a lot of

different areas from infrastructure to health care, child care, and other areas to really grow the economy and set the stage for a new level of growth, much better growth going forward. but yes, they are closing significant long-term spending increases, not just next year, but over the next decade to do that. and their argument is that we have tried reaganomics, and it did not work. we tried cutting taxes on the rich, and that did not really juice the economy in the way that people or proponents of those economic policies said that it would. but as try something different, and let us spend a lot of money on -- to set the stage for future growth. host: let us talk about the budget process for the viewers that may not understand. the white house has put out this budget, what happens next?

does this automatically become law? or what is the next step in the process? guest: this just kicks off the process, and this is a budget request. this is what president biden would want to see. and odds are that it will not------ happened the way he wants it. it will kick off budget fights in congress between republicans and democrats, and biden will get pushback from democrats on the policy that he wants. some of the spending and a lot of the tax increases that he has proposed. democrats already expressed concerns about some of those tax increases and so, it is unlikely that biden will get everything that he wants. but, with a democratic majority in the house and senate, he has a decent chance of getting some sort of compromise legislation passed that includes a lot of democratic priorities. at the same time he will have to

negotiate with democrats, and if you cannot reach a bipartisan deal with republicans on the infrastructure packages that they are talking about now, the democrats will try and push ahead on their own using a special process called reconciliation, a process that they used to pass the american rescue trend for $1.9 trillion covid rescue package that they passed in march. they will try to do that again. they will try and do that with his budget. but, democrats now have a majority in the house and senate, so they will need about every democrat in the house and every single democrat in the senate to go along, which means that biden's proposals will probably be changing over time. host: you said that this budget puts forward the president and the democrat parties. so, what are we able to tell about what the priorities are for the white house and the

democratic congress through this document? guest: like i said, this is about investing in areas that the white house things are important. there is a big investment in addressing climate change, big investment in green energy. the budget has proposed 16 plus percent increase in discretionary spending, but within that there are bigger increases for the department of education, the department of commerce and increased spending and, overall the white house is saying that they want to put money into these areas to try and rebalance the economy, address inequalities that have grown over time, and to really set the stage for better growth and competing with china. host: i want to remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation as well. you will open up our regular lines for our conversation about the proposed biden budget.

that means democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, you can call 202-748-8001. independents your line is going to be 202-748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at 202-748-8003. and, we are always reading on social media on twitter @cspanwj and at facebook.com/c-span. now, let us break down some of these numbers inside this budget. one of the things that we immediately heard about was the defense portion of the budget where there was only a 1.6% increase in the defense spending in the budget. how important is this? guest: that will be one of the big areas where there are fights in the coming months, and there are big differences between republicans and democrats and significant differences within

the democratic caucus about how much we should be spending on defense. biden has proposed an increase in the defense budget. but, it is lower than inflation. and over time, those increases stay lower than inflation, republicans say means the -- will shortchange defense by shortcut -- by cutting what current law would project. on the other hand biden will face pressure from progressives who want him to actually cut and to cut more and so, that is an area -- and moderate democrats are in the middle saying that they want to maintain a strong national defense, and so there is going to be a lot of back and forth between how much we should be spending on defense. host: let us talk about the mandatory or entitlement spending. what does this budget say about that? guest: this is one area where the president, for as much as he looks to increase spending over

time, he is not addressing some of the structural gaps in the budget that have existed when he took office and existed for a long time, and he is looking to increase spending, and he is going through his policies that his budget proposes to add 1.4 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, and have deficits shrink after that. at the same time, the budget is not really addressing the deficit that is driven by those mandatory programs that you are talking about, and so, when you talk about it, a 1.4 trillion dollar increase over 10 years brings the total projected to $14.5 trillion and a lot of that is driven by mandatory programs that the president really isn't looking to tackle right now. host: you brought up deficits.

before we get into the conversation about deficits and debt, can you explain the difference and the importance of the deficit versus the debt. guest: sure. the deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in and revenue -- in revenue every year. the debt is a cumulative total of those deficits. so, when biden is proposing deficits of $1.3 trillion or more a year, one point $8 trillion for next year, $1.3 trillion or more for the next years, but cumulatively, that will add 14 plus trillion dollars to the debt. host: we have also heard talks back and forth about perhaps it looks like the debt is a concern with -- when democrats are in office, but there is not talk about it when republicans are in office.

is that true or a political talking point that we see thrown out every now and then? guest: it has been true over the last several years. and, really over the last several administrations. republicans passed a tax reform law in 2017 that is going to add a projected nearly $2 trillion to the debt. and, you did not hear too much from them about debt and deficit concerns under the trump administration. but they have rediscovered concerns now that biden is in office and that repeats the pattern that we saw going back to the obama administration, said the clinton administration, and at the same time you had republican presidents also add to the debt and republicans were ok with it. there is definitely some truth to it. host: i want to remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation. we are opening up regular lines

meaning that democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. and, keep in mind that you can text us at 202-748-8003. so, who were the winners in this budget proposal, who were the losers? what can we tell right now who the winners and losers were? guest: first of all i should go back and say that the budget proposal itself is unlikely to get enacted in exactly the form that the president has proposed. so, you are going to see the winners and losers revealed over time. but, for now, like i said, president biden is still pushing for a big infrastructure package, and talking about investing in areas that the

white house says and really have been under invested in for years and neglected for years. we do need to address some of the infrastructure issues that we have in the country. but, biden is also really pushing to deal with climate change, and to promote green energy, and electric vehicles, for example. those definitely would be winners if the president can get his infrastructure package enacted. you wants -- he wants to build a network of electric vehicle charging stations and really push the u.s. electric vehicle industry including battery is. that would be one big winner under his proposal. again, he wants to increase spending on education, there are -- he proposes to have two years

of universal preschool and two years of free community college. in the white house says that makes the american people winners. you will have a lot of people who are in lower middle-class and poor people, or middle-class people who will be able to have better lives as a result of some of these programs that the president is proposing. host: what does this budget say about the president's plan to reverse the trump tax cuts and republican tax cuts that have happened in the past? guest: so, that is a key part of how president biden wants to pay for the programs that he is proposing. he wants to partially reverse the trump tax cuts. he has already called for increasing the corporate tax rate. it had been 35%, then the republican tax law lowered it to

21%. president biden is proposing to bring it to 28%, a middle ground. he is getting pushback from democrats who would rather see it at 25% rather than 28%. and the president has expressed openness to that idea, having it be in that range. corporate taxes, tax increases on the rich. the president has emphasized and promised repeatedly that he does not want to increase taxes on people making under $400,000 a year. and his tax proposals are aimed at people making above that level. but, he has proposed increasing capital gains taxes for people making more than $1 million a year and he is really looking to generate web -- revenue from the wealthy and corporations. the problem is that he is getting pushback. republicans say rolling back any of the trump tax cuts is a nonstarter. they are not willing to look at

that. that is the signature legislation passed under president trump and they do not want to rollback any of that. democrats are expressing concerns about some of the proposals. democrats are pushing for changes to increase the deductibility of state and local taxes which was one of the changes that was enacted in republican tax law. there are democrats pushing back on the capital gains tax level and democrats pushing on the corporate tax level. so, president biden wants -- the budget says that the tax increases would generate $3.6 trillion in revenue helping to pay for the programs with $5 trillion in additional spending that the president is proposing, and then those tax increases would be permanent. the spending increases would be temporary. that means that they would help pay for these programs over time, and over time end up reducing the deficits generating

more revenue and old -- and would ultimately bring the government shared revenue to a share of the economy that we have not seen since the clinton administration. so, the taxes are going to be a big area of differences and fights between republicans and democrats. host: i have tons more questions, but let us let our viewers take part of this conversation. but a start with charlie from elk grove village illinois. charlie, good morning. caller: good morning. you talked about trickle-down, and i had a couple of questions. you talked about trickle-down did not work so we have to try something else. i thought that was an interesting comment. when donald trump trump was president, we basically had the best economy i have seen in my life. where lack and brown unemployment across -- and unemployment across the board

was as low as it has ever been. today small business cannot hire employees because there has been so much money sent to people. in my daily life, people cannot hire anybody. you look like you are a good journalist, but not a great economist. but when you add that we have to pay that back. so our grandchildren will pay that back. so if there is any slight increase in interest rates, basically the amount of interest payments that the government is going to have to make is going to balloon. that will put a crimp on discretionary spending for decades to come. so i do not understand how you can say the republicans did not care anything about the deficits, so let us wrap it up two or three times as much and maybe that will be better. i would just like your comments on debt. we do have to pay that back, right? guest: thank you for the question. i want to clarify that when i was talking about trickle-down

economics did not work i am saying that is what the administration is saying. in terms of debt and deficits, we have to pay it back. even the budget projects that the interest costs on the debt are going to go for about 300 billion this year to 900 billion. and, as a share of the economy they will double. yes, there is -- the debt has to pay back and there are costs associated with it. at the administration says, again this is not me and these are talking points i am trying to explain what their position is, the administration says the debt burden is manageable. interest rates are low so this is a good time to be investing in these programs because the administration believes that they will unleash economic growth that will be ultimately stronger than if we do not make these investments. host: let us talk to sarah, calling from miami, florida on

the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am in tallahassee. i wanted to be close till ron desantis, the greatest political leader in america. let me tell you something, gun laws, we went over this before during the revolutionary war and we already figured it out way back then. host: before you go further, we are talking about the biden budget, not gun laws. caller: the biden budget, good luck getting it approved. i do not want to see the doomsday clock because of him, and these liberals, you are not good at lying anymore. we know numbers in the republican party and we know you do not have them, but you will exam your -- exaggerate them and push them as high as they can go because who cares about the next generation. i am a millennial and i am the future, and i will make sure that these biden era policies --

infrastructure was proposed by president trump to nancy pelosi last january. he wanted to do infrastructure last january with nancy pelosi who was going -- and he was going to work with her. what did she do, she went to the white house and used it as a photo op for the media. she has a media princess, isn't she? it is over. i look forward to 2022 and the election. i am not sure how you think we have lost so many seats in -- gain so many seats in republicans -- for republicans but not the white house. the truth is coming. host: what does this budget say about infrastructure? guest: this budget looks to invest a lot in infrastructure. but it is under the president's definition of infrastructure, which means not just roads, bridges, broadband, or water projects, but a bunch of other areas that the white house calls

human infrastructure that looked to help caregivers and people with childcare. and a host of other areas -- areas, eldercare and other areas that the administration says our infrastructure because they are critical for the economy to work in the way that we would all want it to work. host: a lot of government spending over the last two years has revolved around the coronavirus pandemic. what does this budget, and how does the covid pandemic affect the writing and numbers in this budget? guest: one of the things that -- first of all, the budget itself is looking forward, so yes the president, and congress enacted a coronavirus rescue plan in march. this is about dealing with the

recovery post-pandemic than with addressing the critical needs of the pandemic. at the same time, we saw huge spending increases in 2020 and 2021, those fiscal years, resulting from the pandemic, and what the president is proposing is to maintain spending at that higher level for the foreseeable future, the next eight to 10 years to really reshape the economy. so, the pandemic in some ways opens the door for the president to make his case that bigger government can help people. people said yes, we need help during the pandemic and the government provided help and sent stimulus checks, unemployment, and vaccine development, etc.. there were a lot of ways that government helped people get through the pandemic. and, biden is essentially saying that we think the government can

continue to help people, can do more to make people's lives better and he is proposing to maintain spending at these pandemic level amounts, $6 trillion next year whereas a few years ago the budget was 4 trillion and then 4.5 trillion. he is looking to maintain the spending at the higher levels that came in during the pandemic in response to the coronavirus, and trying to make the case that the government should be investing longer-term to improve the economy. the pandemic in some ways created an opening for biden to argue that the government can help people more. host: you were talking a few seconds ago about this budget is looking forward to the recovery. what is the growth and revenue assumptions that the white house is making in the budget that tells us what they think the

growth of the country could be over the next few years? guest: the growth projections are one of the most surprising things in it, because they are relatively low. and, the white house is saying growth is going to be about 5% this year, which is a really strong level. and, it will moderate 4.3% or so next year, and then after that, it projects that growth is going to be in roughly the 2% range or a little bit lower. and that is surprising because on the other hand, they are making the case that they will invest $5 trillion more in all of these programs to boost growth, and you do not see it in the growth projection. the white house says that that is because some of the projections were done before the american jobs plan and the american families plan were fully proposed so it only incorporates part of the plans.

and that some of the economic models that exist for projecting how the economy will grow do not factor in, and cannot factor in at this point some of the benefits that they see coming from transitioning to green energy, addressing climate change, and some of the other programs that they have. that is really a surprise, because over the last several years under president trump, the president's budget projected really strong growth, up to 3% a year or so. that was beyond what economists expected would happen. president biden is going the other way and trying to under deliver and overpromise in some ways. host: how accurate normally are these projections? are these gases, or are they -- guesses or historically accurate? guest: they are projections,

meaning that they do not always come true. excuse me. but, i think the important part about the administration's projection is that they still are stronger than what the current baseline would be under the congressional budget office's projections. we are looking at containing -- they are saying that they can get to modest increases in growth that year-over-year will really add up, and delivered trillions of dollars more in economic output. host: let us go back to the phone lines and talk to trey from alexandria, virginia on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i thanks the quest -- the question was based on the proposed budget, who was the

winners and losers? i have three questions and i will not take up too much time. as far as the budget being designed to put america in a better place to complete with -- compete with china in a future, that has a negative impact on african-americans because a lot of china are investigated in africa. and that let's the black americans know that we are not the focus with all of the reparations and black lives matter talk, we are not mentioned in this proposal or the other billions of dollars that they pulled out of space to start handing out to everyone else. as far as where do we go from here, no one cares about us, that adds to the mental stress. secondly, reparations, would that be a deficit or something we have to pay back, or is that an expense that we have charged up.

it does not say a lot for us on our output on how the economy is working because we have not working that strong since slavery, so we are losing in the budget proposal. so, no matter how it plays out we know that we are not on the talking board. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i think that the budget really is actually -- a lot of it is focused on addressing issues of inequality. and the president's budget is looking to invest specifically in minority communities in areas that are traditionally underrepresented. they have made efforts to make sure that money is going into those areas, and they would say, at least that the budget is aimed at rebalancing the economy so that people of color,

communities that have been underrepresented, and poor americans can be -- through some of these programs. the white house is focused on some of those communities and issues that i was talking about, but it may not be in ways they would approve of. host: one of our social media followers wants to know a little more about the country's debt. what is the current debt level for every man, woman and child in the u.s.? what bank would approve a loan if the previous loans were unlikely to be paid back? talk about the debt in the budget proposal. guest: the debt is high. the budget would have it go higher. right now, we have about $17 trillion in public debt, debt

that the government -- that excludes the debt the government owes to itself. in total, it is about 8 trillion. the debt right now is about the same size as the economy overall. the president's budget would have a go to 117% of the economy and reach a record level i-20 24 -- by 2024, a level as high as it was in world war ii as a share of the economy, and they keep going from there so that by 2031, it would get to 170% of the economy. again, that is one of the big areas of differences, where the president is not saying that the debt or deficits do not matter, but what they are arguing is that with interest rates low, this is a good time to make those investments, that they

will find ways to pay for them over time, over 15 years, and in the long run, they will pay it off. for now, we are facing long-term debt problems and structural imbalances in the budget that will continue and that are not being addressed in the president's budget. host: by the way, if you want to see the debt numbers yourself, you can find that at u.s.debtclock.org. let's talk to everett, calling from grand junction, colorado on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have got a couple of good questions. one is, if he could address maybe the people who are on social security and fixed incomes, a friend and i have

discussed the corporate tax increases, if you are to raise taxes on corporate america to pay for all of this, do they really pay taxes? don't they just pass it on to their customers? people go round and round and round about this. i would appreciate it if you explain both of those things because it is killing people on fixed incomes. thank you. guest: inflation is a big concern, and that is one of the worries that is out there, that all this additional spending is going to flood the economy with a bunch of money and that is comparing out to a year ago, which was still the middle of a

pandemic. the concern is inflation is going to take off, and the government and federal reserve, which would raise interest rates, is not necessarily going to be able to do that in a way that avoids a recession on the other side, so that is a big concern. they are moderating that and the inflation we are seeing right now is temporary. fed chairman jerome powell agrees with that, and right now, the inflation we expect to see now and in the coming months is going to be temporary. it is definitely a concern that this money is going to overheat the economy. remind me what the second part of the question was customer host: i think --the second part of the question was? host: logged off.

let's go to nick on the independent line. caller: this is, boy, there has been some type of security here lately. i don't know if he knows how dangerous the region of mexico is, but we cannot let the border be open like that. the cartels are starting to make their way into the united states. it would be great if we got a hold of that. the number one thing we need to face right now is our water issues. we need to start investing in the salt plants on the coast. the best country that has the technology is israel, our ally. we have to get that solved

before we start doing the infrastructure and probably energy after that, through our grid, but, yeah, i just hope he understands some of that stuff before he cancels pipelines and realizes how vulnerable we are. so, yeah, let me know what you think. guest: the good news is that addressing those water issues is one of the priorities in the infrastructure plan out there, and there is an agreement for the need to address drinking water, wastewater, water treatment plans, and there is a lot of areas of agreement. the president proposed replacing lead pipes and homes and buildings across the country, and doing other projects to make sure that people have safe drinking water and to also deal

with wastewater treatment and other things like that. it is a priority, the caller is right about the need for people to have safe drinking and other clean water. host: let's go to ruby, calling from greenville, south carolina. ruby, good morning. caller: good morning. nice to hear from "washington journal" c-span to give people a voice. my number one concern is that i do believe that the democrats are the losers. one of the reasons is that in the infrastructure bill, it says that i do not understand where it includes the black community. and the community that i am in

is predominant black, rundown, homes of 3000 or $4000, or condominiums, and it does not include the black people here in the county. we are in rural areas that does not have the proper accommodation, the water, and things of that nature. they are putting this out. we cannot afford it, the banks are not in support of us, so i really need to know, why haven't the democrats really sat down and looked at a reparation bill for us? guest: it is true there is not a proposal from the administration for reparation, but there are

reparation proposals and they will examine the issue in congress, but the caller is right that it will probably be a while before we see legislation reparation pass. host: some people, including many allies in washington say the budget documents don't really matter or they are just political documents set to appeal to voting groups, what do you think about that? guest: those two things are not necessarily accomplished, meaning that it could be a political document and still matter, is what i am trying to say. it is a political document, no question about it. it is a way for the administration to outline its priorities, to say whether or not it is willing to pay for its priorities, and even if it is

not going to pass in the form that the president once, that still matters because it sends a political message, and in this case, it gives directions for democrats and congress, who control both houses, to start working on budget legislations and appropriations, determining which programs will get what amount of money. i think for those reasons, it does matter, but it is easy to say that it does not matter because this is the budget that will be enacted. host: second question, did you find the timing of the release of the budget unusual, coming out on a friday before a holiday weekend? usually, that is where they dump bad news. guest: exactly. that is true. it is certainly unusual. the white house budget was delayed. delayed repeatedly. this is the latest the president has submitted a budget request

in ages, and in part, that was because the white house said there were issues during the transition and the white house also does not have a permanent budget director as of yet. their nominee for the position faced pushback from senators and looked like she was not going to be confirmed, so she withdrew, and there is an acting budget director, who is acting as the budget director, who is probably going to be nominated within the next couple of weeks and all of that may be contributed to the delays, but the timing is certainly questionable because like you said, friday before a holiday weekend, friday afternoon before a holiday weekend is when you traditionally dump news you do not want people to see. host: let's get a couple more calls in, helen, calling from

new jersey. good morning. helen, are you there? helen, are you there? let's try vic, calling from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i think we need to increase taxes. people do not want to pay more taxes, but they have to increase it, especially people on the top 1% and corporations, but not too high because they will move out of the country. we need to build things in this country, and the revenue will go up. we also need to cut spending. you cannot spend $740 billion on military, which is more than -- you could add up the top 15 countries together, and they don't spend that much on the military. we cannot afford that and social programs. we have a high poverty rate, one

and four children going without food. we have basic needs, and if the republicans cut social security, they will say that and they are all about trickle-down economics that does not work, grow taxes for the corporations that doesn't work, and we also need a balanced budget to pay down the national debt. host: go ahead and respond before we run out of time. guest: one thing i wanted to add was that the president's budget projects allowing some of the trump tax cuts for low and middle income people to expire, scheduled to expire at the end of 2025 and president biden i let that happen, so while he is convert tax increases on the wealthy, it also includes tax increases on lower middle income people, and there is a question on whether the president would

want to have that happen, and maybe he would change that in a future budget. as of now, when the caller talked about increased revenues, the budget would have increased revenues but over time, lower and middle income people, which contradicts the president's promise to not increase taxes on anybody making less than $400,000. host:host: let's get a quick question from lee from south carolina. caller: good morning. i wanted to know, with the troop withdrawal from afghanistan, what impact would that have on revenue or the biden's budget? guest: that would lower costs. the idea is to matt be spending money and afghanistan, and progressives are looking to take that spending and other parts of the defense budget and

redirected, so that is one of the areas where we will find out in the coming months when congress develops its budget plan how we are going to shift that many and what else it will go. host: we would like to thank the editor-in-chief of the fiscal times,yuval rosenberg, for being here and talking us through the budget proposal. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we will open up our phone lines and talk to you about the senate gop blocking the january 6 commission. you see the numbers on your screen, and we are looking forward to hearing your opinions on the senate geo p -- gop january 6 commission. we will be right back. ♪

>> book tv on c-span [applause] has top nonfiction --c-span2 has top authors. tonight, maverick, by jason riley. he is interviewed by nationally syndicated talk show host dennis prager. sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, the premonition of endemic stories. michael lewis writes about the early warning signs of the covid-19 pandemic and the trump administration's response. watch booktv on c-span2 this weekend. >> the tech industry is often about the future, future oriented, and politics is a lot about the president, concerns about what technology is going to mean for them. i am not keen on bashing congress. i do think that any future

technology has to answer a lot of concerns on the impact on people, communities and the environment, and those are understandable questions. >> the power of the tech industry and its impact with chamber of commerce, adam kovach a niche -- adam covax of h on the communicators. ♪ ♪

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and will open up our phone lines. we will get your thoughts on the gop blocking the january 6 commission that was proposed by congress to find out what happened and what led to the january 6 insurrection/riot that happened here in washington, d.c., at the u.s. capitol. first, let's go to the senate majority leader chuck schumer and hear what he said after yesterday's vote, where democrats did not get enough votes to overcome a republican filibuster of the january 6 commission. here is majority leader sure. [video clip] >> this is democracy at stake. if americans state the veracity of our elections, it is the beginning of the end of a democracy. that is what happens in

dictatorships, people don't believe the elections. this goes way beyond party. donald is perpetrating the big lie. i am terribly disappointed that so many republicans even refused to look at a bipartisan, down the middle look at it because they are afraid of donald trump. donald trump is a vein to our democracy -- bane to our democracy. unless people in his own party stand up for him -- stand up to him, it is bad for that party and individuals, but most of all, the country. i hope that will change. host: we want to know what you think about the senate gop blocking the january 6 commission. let's start with diana, calling from freeport, illinois, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead, diana. you are on. caller: it is completely amazing to me how afraid they are of our

ex twice impeached. the president, i cannot understand where the fear is, where the fear is. it is just mind-boggling. [laughter] i don't understand it. host: what do you think should be done instead, diana? caller: i think that nancy pelosi needs to have a special commission in the house of representatives, and, unfortunately, it will not be bipartisan because they do not want it. they do not want to see themselves brought into the fold because we saw josh holloway, we saw mo brooks, we saw ted cruz, how they are still saying it

happened and the reason why january 6 happen, they are still lying about it. i hope nancy pelosi is able to do something, thank you very much. host: let's go to robert, calling from roscoe, new york, on the independent line. robert, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: just fine, go ahead, robert. caller: i am just amazed that these guys voted that way. getting away with a crime of busting up the capital, unbelievable. when they come out, i watched it a lot, you have to be a blind man not to see what is going on. i just want to know who started this, who organized it, and who is behind it? we will never know now because

these republicans are so scared of donald trump. host: well, senator ted cruz of texas put out a statement after the vote to explain why he did not vote for the january 6 commission, and i want to read to you the statement from senator ted cruz of texas. "the january 6 terrorist attack on the capitol was a dark moment in our nations history, and i support the ongoing law enforcement investigations into anyone involved. everyone who attacked the capital must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and brought to justice. i also support the senate committee of jurisdiction who are exercising their proper oversight roles to provide in-depth and complete account of the attacks. with multiple investigations already underway, i do not support the january 6 commission led by senator schumer and

speaker pelosi." that is a statement from u.s. senator ted cruz from texas on why he did not support the january 6 commission. just so we know, i will redo what actually happened with the vote on friday in a story from "usa today." the senate voted 54-35 friday on the debate, which fell short of the votes needed to overcome a gop filibuster, which blocked the measure. the house had approved legislation to create the commission with support of 35 republicans, so democrats needed 60 votes to overcome a gop filibuster for the january 6 commission. they only got 54 in the senate. that stock to charlotte, calling from georgia on the republican line. charlotte, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you. on this memorial weekend, as we look over the work that has been

done for our country, the commission discussion, as well as the prior discussion is an imperfection that i think is a good one because we see that we have much work to still do in this country if in fact we have a wreckage and a rumble and a ruin that we, as the gentleman said before, and see with our own eyes, yet, somehow, we cannot find america in that. we are now facing two parties that recognize i am one of the suburbia and women, here in georgia but visiting from virginia with memorial weekend where we have gathered once again with a 90-year-old and 80-year-old to remember those whose souls have gone on who we did not get to have in the past year and a half because we could not gather.

so we have a country where leaders are refusing on one side, the republican side. i have one of the suburbia -- i am one of the suburbia women who made the turn from republican to democrat because i could not stomach an intellectual person, rational, pragmatic person, a person who believes in famine, and who lives a life without people. we are not just people of basis, but we are humanity together that have been formed to create a country, and this lack -- it seems -- it is almost to the base of where there is an evil in this because we are now facing a republican party, and you can talk about tax policy and the president, who i did support, and kamala harris, who

i supported in the primary, because i am a suburban woman, and my daughters, who are educated women, in their 30's and 40's who are pharmacists, doctors, teachers, i just had a cousin who just finished cia training, so we are involved and to the gentleman from virginia who called with nonsense about some budget not reflecting black agenda, the budget they put forward is not an american agenda. host: let's go to tommy, calling from circleville, west virginia, on the democratic line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. host: what do you think about the january 6 commission? caller: i think that that american craziness on record and officially recorded, and they

are documented, artist and ensuing insurrectionists, pathological liars, republicans, and our u.s. senate members against the u.s. constitution of the united states of america. they are now all headed to experiencing the rule of law's that no one is above the laws in the united states of america and in the five united states territories ever. you swear an oath to uphold the laws of this country, you commit to crime or crimes and you will go to one of our 122 u.s. federal prisons without parole. and upon passing unmarked graves. these are elected officials that come from all walks of life. they are not royalty before they come in. they are not chosen and tapped either supreme beings of any religious colts, and all of a sudden, after they are in

office, i can remember when people need was in office and he could talk to both sides of the fence. -- i remember wingtip oatmeal was in office -- when tip o'ne ill was in office. today, we have had an infrastructure of politics brought in by russia and trump has always had a need for dictators because it makes him feel in some way above everything and he is a psycho. host: let's go to lee calling from minnesota. lee, good morning. caller: good morning. i am an independent, and i believe it is time for the government to move on. this is all nonsense. that's get on with the people's business. thank you. host: let's see what some of our

social media followers are saying about the senate gop locking the january 6 commission's. here is one tweet from twitter that says, everything most politicians do is about the next election, not about legislating for the people. another says i am just as concerned about the events and riots in chicago and many other cities. the democrats were aggrandize by those civil servants. let's investigate all of these, as well as the capitol riot equally. that will reveal the divisions in this country. here is another text that says, did the fbi investigate? it has been five months. where is the report? one last tweet from twitter that says, as long as any select community has subpoena power, i could care less. the evidence will come out in the over 400 criminal prosecutions.

hopefully one at a time. let's go back to our phone lines and start with ed, calling from pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: yeah. my comment is, nancy pelosi and chuck schumer, they have tried to impeach the former president twice. free democrats, [indiscernible] host: let's go to charlie, calling from maine, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i watch a lot of c-span lately because i have been in the house for so long, like everyone else. i was there and ready to fight if i had to. i am frightened. we have a whole bunch of people with all kinds of power that

voted, no, not to find out what happened. it just seems ridiculous. why did they even get a vote? they are just protecting themselves. maybe we will be lucky in new york, take care of mr. trump and put him where he belongs. i think a lot of them are waiting for that to happen. they are so afraid of this guy, they have given up a country to let him have his way. put him in jail and that's get on with our life. we have a country to take care of. we had kids dying all over the world for freedom, and we don't even have freedom from our own congress? host: let's talk to earl, calling from emory, wisconsin, on the republican line. good morning. caller: yes, i watched this january 6 theatrical go on television live, down in

arizona. it was not on a network. there were four buses that drove in and they unloaded about 100 people, escorted by the police. these are important people to get escorted in, dressed like trump supporters. when they came, they said it was antifa coming. what is going on for our media not to cover that? thank you. host: let's go to mickey, calling from vineland, new jersey, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment on what you just showed with chuck schumer. i want to remind him and a lot

of people that do not seem to know it, we are not a democracy. the united states is not a democracy. it is a republic. the difference is, in a democracy, the majority rules. and the republic is formed to ensure the rights of even the individuals, right? so, chuck schumer should know this. we are not a democracy. we are a republic. that is all i have to say, thank you. host: let's look at what the january 6 commission legislation would have actually done. so, there january 6 commission was intended to investigate facts, circumstances, and influencing factors on the attack on the u.s. capitol.

it would have had five commissioners and a chair appointed by democrats, and five commissioners and a vice chair appointed by republicans. the people investigating must have experience in civil rights, law enforcement, cybersecurity and intelligence. current government officers or employees would have been prohibited from the commission. the commission would have had the ability to subpoena, and would have had to have a final report with findings and recommendations before december 31, 2021. it must have wrapped up its work this calendar year, but right now, once again, that commission has been locked by senate gop, who republicans voted with democrats to overcome the gop filibuster of that commission. let's go back to our phone lines

and talk to denise, calling from florida on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, and morning to everybody listening to c-span. i love to listen to c-span because i get to hear the opinions of the people, in addition to listening to different news reports. i just think that business is so disappointing, and i think it is a retaliation for the black lives, the presidential election . it is just a slap in the face to the police that were there that day, and not protecting them. i hope this does not happen again, but if it happens again, mmm, that would be a tough one if i was the police. i would probably let them get to them, but it is just ridiculous. it is all about race in this

country. we should want to know what happened, and people should be punished for that. host: let's go to judy, calling from rochester, new hampshire, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have my opinion, of course. i do think it should be investigated, but i do not think nancy pelosi should be the one to pick out the people on the committee. from my understanding, that is what was happening. it is not right that she picks people who even on the republican side do have a problem with trump. i am not a trump fan, but it would be like having a jury of the murderer sitting there, not convicting a person who actually did the crime. so, i do not know if i explained that right. i am not very good at explaining

things, but anyway, she was picking people to be on that committee who has a problem with trump, and i don't think that is fair. it should be someone who is outside congress totally, totally. very independent, and that is not what was happening, so i do not blame some of the republicans for not voting on it. host: according to the description of the commission, no one in government would have the ability to sit on the commission, so as you say, none of the anti-trump lawmakers would have been able to sit on the committee anyway because they are all government lawmakers. caller: that is not the understanding i heard listening to some of the news, and it was not fox news i heard it on. another problem i do have is i do not understand why they let so many people in showing them around, and nancy pelosi leaves her office unlocked?

they give a tour of the whole thing for people who are going to riot. so many questions fall back on democrats. i think they are the ones, that is why they are picking the people they want. that is my opinion. i think people are going to get kept back. i think people went in there to riot and they are going to get kickbacks wednesday went out of -- once they get out of -- kickbacks once they get out of jail, and they will get kickbacks. host: kickbacks from who? caller: i still do not understand what you said. host: you said you think they're going to get kickbacks on the get out of jail. who is paying the kickbacks do you think? caller: i think george soros has something to do with it. i think in the bottom of my heart, i think nancy pelosi, hillary clinton, george soros, a lot of those high-paying people who also paid some of the black

lives riots, and, you know what? people have the right to protest, but the riots that went on with burning down buildings, getting bailed out the minute they were put into jail, someone is paying for it. host: let's go to debbie, calling from roscoe, illinois, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i think judy had a point. these other riots, nobody seemed to care about, and people died in portland, seattle, and kenosha, wisconsin. they burn down kenosha, wisconsin, but nobody cares about those riots that were very violent. january 6 was not meant to be violent. trump had no plan of hurting anybody, rating the capital.

i have been to one of his rallies. this is supposed to be one rally out of 45 that he has had. 44 other ones never had any. i mean, it was just peaceful and kind, and everybody was nice to each other. they actually had a good feeling when you are out there. he had no idea that this was going to go on. and judy made the point, too, open the doors and just let people in. i have been to the capital. i know that the doors are open. it is the people's house. all of the people walked in thinking nothing of it. they were not even sure where they were going to. it seemed they were being led through. you can go and sit on the balcony. host: debbie, are you saying that the police standing outside with barricades was not an

indication that the capitol was not open to come in at that time? caller: i do not know where the barricades were, and some people were acting strange, but we also had one guy who admitted he was wearing trump stuff when he hated trump but was trying to cause trouble. those people were arrested and they are being dealt with, and they should be. anyone who committed crime should be dealt with, but it does not make them a trump fan. even if they put a trump hat on, it does not make them a trump fan. everyone wants to know exactly what happened january 6, but the democrats do not want to know what happened in the election. what is going on in arizona is not democrat or republican. they are looking to find out if our election got, you know, somebody there who knew how to cheat. host: let's go to anthony,

calling from saratoga springs, new york, on the democratic line. anthony, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. this is my first experience with how you get through to actually speak with you, and i have heard a lot of very good points. i have got to tell you, i am calling betwixt and between a political stance. i am a democrat for 50 years, albany, new york, the cradle of classic american politics. when i was a kid, mike family had a good grocery business in albany, -- my family had a grocery business in albany, new york, and i was dispatched to the office because we had gotten involved in municipal transactions in the city. what i remember was when i used

to go to the mayor's office, and by the way, mayor corning was mayor for 42 years, and truly behind-the-scenes, nelson rockefeller really cannot do too much without the say-so from the mayor of albany, new york. what i noticed echo then, and i am relating to, you give a little and you get a little bipartisanship. joe biden right now, and i like joe biden and what is going on, you know, just want to say something. i am very big on the facts. let's review the facts. everybody that hates donald trump, and i understand why he could use a statesmanship coach, but let's think about the big board and the economy when it peaked in february 2020, and donald trump had facetime with

no less than 24 world leaders, just to pick one when he steps off of air force one in north korea, kim jong-un, trying to pretend he is not intimidated with a guy who has the best economy on the planet, the strongest military, and every leading indicator on the big board. isn't this the goal? host: let's go to paul, calling from kentucky, on the independent line. paul, good morning. caller: i think everybody is asking the wrong question. why is it that american government is scared of the people? why did they have barriers around the capitol? because of the last three years, we have been losing jobs, purposely letting them go outside of the country. people are heading tired of what

is going on in d.c. most of d.c. is corrupt. they care about controlling the american people. donald trump was the only one who in the last 30 years, who really cared about the american people. everybody else was worried about their power. so why is it that the american people hate washington, d.c.? host: what would you say about the fact that the national guard is no longer around the u.s. capitol? caller: why were they? why were they wanting a commission? there was a riot, a simple riot, that is it. it was people should go to -- those people should go to jail. what is going on there? host: let's go to anthony, calling from west bloomfield, michigan, on the democratic line. anthony, good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. you know, i am speaking from the perspective of a 30 plus year

retired marine corps veteran, african-american, proud citizen of this country, and it is amazing to hear the states and comments of the callers. we should expect more, we should expect answers and why the occurrence happened. an attack on the capitol is not equivalent to anything that took place during the summer. the comparisons are far analogies. elected representatives are supposed to represent the people and should be a little more astute to have the answers we need to prevent these things from happening in the future. host: we would like to thank all of our callers who called in for that segment. next, we turn our attention to medicaid and efforts by some states to now expand that

program. national journal joins us with more on this topic in just a second. stick with us. we will be right back. >> on memorial day, join our live conversation marking the 100th anniversary of the toll surveys massacre. our guest from the tolson historical society and museum is a local author and attorney, hannibal johnson. watch live, monday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span's "washington journal" and american historytv on c-span3. ♪ >> sunday night on "q&a," a conversation with a filmmaker and author on his book about a world war ii army unit called "the ghost army."

>> in september 1944,p atton raced across ramps with the third army towards germany. he was focused on trying to attack the city, and there was a gap that opened up in the front line. we do not have any troops to put their. the ghost story was at that point in paris, and by the next day, they are there one mile from the front line, setting up and pretending to be the sixth armored division. >> filmmaker and author rick buyer sunday night at 8:00 -- rick beyer sunday night on "q&a ." you can also listen to "q&a" as a podcast wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with our spotlight on magazine segment, and today, we have with us erin durkin, the health care reporter for "national journal," here to talk about her most recent article with the promise of more

money, red states consider medicaid expansion. good morning. guest: good morning. happy to be here. host: first, let's start with the definition for our viewers of exactly what medicaid is and what it does, and how exactly we find it. guest: yes, that is a great question, especially because we have multiple programs like medicare. educate is specifically largely for populations or people living with disabilities and the elderly, who do not make above a certain percent of the poverty level. this provides health care coverage. the way that it is funded is unique in that it is funded by the state and federal government, and the federal government does have some laws that really define who is

eligible and benefits required. the states have a lot of say in how this gets implemented, different programs, optional benefits at the state level, and to give a definition of also what the medicaid expansion looks like, you know, under the affordable care act, states were given the option to expand their programs so that more people could be covered, typically people between 100% and 130% of their poverty level. the reason this was done is because there was kind of a gap between medicaid coverage and premium subsidies and assistance for the private marketplace. many states provide this option, while other states still had it. that is the general difference between the traditional medicaid program and the expansion

program. host: let's talk about which states are using the expansion and which states are not. if i'm understanding correctly, there are 38 states and the district of columbia that accepted the medicaid expansion. guest: that is correct. most states have actually taken this up. and something to clarify is that for the expansion population, the federal government pays for most of this cost at a higher match rate than the traditional population, so the federal government picks up 90% of the cost. a lot of people consider it a good deal for them. it brings a lot of federal dollars in, but there are 12 states who have not formally adopted the policy, and there are two states, oklahoma and missouri, that have adopted it.

oklahoma has not implemented the policy yet, and then there is a controversy in missouri, where voters passed the policy last year, and the governor recently said he would not expand it. host: for the places that have decided not to expand, what are some of the reasons why they say they do not want this one it seems the majority of the states say this is a good deal? guest: the reasons are familiar. there is concern about this program and what happens if the federal government suddenly decides they are not going to pay at that high matching rate anymore and what happens to the state? and then there is a discussion about how they pay for it. this is something that came up in alabama specifically in my conversations, really looking at how they need to pay for it.

the governor said he was not going to implement this policy because the general assembly did not provide money. that is one of the major reasons, i have heard, and another one, obviously, is connected to the affordable care act, connected to obamacare. for some states, red states like texas and florida, this might be very ideological, and also, some conservatives have different ideas on how to get the population covered and how to figure out the issue in a different way that does not rely on a federally funded program. host: this brings us around to your article, which says that there are some of those states, which are red states, who are now considering the medicaid expansion after not accepting it before. what is changing for these states? guest: so, i started looking

into this story after lawmakers in congress passed new incentives back in march to try and use them to convince the 12 states to pick up the policy. what this incentive does is it provides more federal money for the traditional medicaid program we discussed. specifically, the federal matching rate would be 5% higher for two years if the states were taken up. i was curious to see if this has really impacted the conversation at all. what it certainly has done is given advocates a bigger $to talk to when talking to lawmakers, a point they always come to is how much money is left on the table, and that adds to it. in my particular article, i point out two states, wyoming

being one. there seem to be a lot of movement in the last session they had, the policy did not make it through the legislature. it died in the senate. however, there is hope they will be able to bring this up again in a special session this summer, so it does not seem like the effort is done since negotiations are still ongoing. in alabama, i would not say there is much movement, but there seems to be openness on the part of the governor. it seems like they are in fact gathering situation right now. they are trying to figure out if it is good for their state and if it is something they should be interested in. i had a general medicaid expert suggests to me that maybe they would not start looking into this until after the policy was signed off i president biden, -- signed off by president biden, so there might be a few states

he really need to assess it before they make decisions. host: let me remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation. we will open up regional lines for the final segment. that means if you are in the eastern or central time zones, eastern or central time zones, call in at (202)-748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, your number is going to be (202)-748-8001. we are going to open up a special line for medicaid recipients. if you are in those 12 states and you want to talk about the medicaid expansions and not agreeing to it, or if you are in one of the 38 states or the district of columbia and want to tell us how the expansion is working for you, your line is going to be (202)-748-8002. once again, that number is for medicaid recipients only. keep in mind, you can text us at (202)-748-8003, and we are

always reading on social media on twitter at --@cspanwj, and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. erin, do the states who are considering getting into the medicaid expansion, are they asking for anything different from the 38 states, or that have already gotten into it , are they looking foran escape clause or anything new? guest: i am glad you raised that because when i spoke to the wyoming state senator, i don't know if they are asking the federal government exactly, or they are trying to assess options generally right now, but he did suggest the money alone probably would not be enough to get people who are reticent on board. they are looking into whether

they can withdraw and whether they pick up that option, once it is adopted, and that as a whole other conversation because there is this feeling that once you adopt something, it is hard to roll back. there was a suggestion that having an escape clause of some kind would make people feel better, may be more willing to sign on to the policy. host: let's take our call from one of our viewers. let's start with joann, calling from south portland, maine, good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling from south portland, maine. we were estate -- we are a state -- hello? host: you are still on, joanne, go ahead. caller: we are a state that initially did not expand medicaid and then the people voted and it became law. the governor refused to put into

place, but some supporting misery, i hope they get there and the people keep fighting for it because we do have medicaid expansion, especially in the time of the pandemic. it has been a gift for many people impacted by covid. the other thing about medicaid expansion, it covers people from 21 to 65. there is a huge gap between 65. if you have a heart attack, where you get your medical coverage? right? so, i think people really half to adjust -- it would be a gift to the country if all the states would expand medicaid. to those other states, i feel really bad for people who are uninsured or underinsured because of differences on the aca. the aca is also incredible because it gave pregnant women 209% apl to get coverage for the

pregnancies. so, anyway, medicaid expansion and the apa has been great. we need to keep folks in the health care system. host: go ahead and respond. guest: she raises a number of points i have been hearing from experts and advocates, especially during the pandemic when there was such an economic downturn. you know, medicaid expansion, especially one of the health care arguments for it is that it brings money into the state and it is a revenue maker in many ways. and then, also, as she points out, it would provide coverage. not only does it ensure that people have health insurance, but something i've heard from hospital associations is that it helps them as well, especially rural hospitals.

it reduces the amount of uncompensated care that they have, and recall that during the pandemic, especially early on, they really had to shut down a lot of their other services that were not emergencies. they had to really accommodate people coming in from covid-19 and keeping people safe, so that really cut through their revenue. so, she raised a number of points, especially coming out of the pandemic, it will be interesting to see if those experiences will have an impact on any of these conversations also. host: i want to read to use some of the numbers from your article, and exactly about how they are changing the programs, and perhaps -- get those 12 states in and then get a little bit about the numbers. tucked into the 1.9 trillion relief legislation that congress passed in march is an incentive to track the last 12 states that

have not adapted expansion as well as oklahoma and missouri who have adopted but not a moment to the program. not only with those states receive the 90% federal matching funds for the newly covered population, they would get a 5% increase in the federal matching rate for the traditional medicaid population for two years. should the states decide to adopt expansion sooner rather than later, that bump in federal dollars will be on top of the 6.2% increase provided by the families first coronavirus response act that is expected to last through march 2022 according to a kaiser family foundation analysis." the states that held out, would give and extracts -- we get an extra infusion of medicaid money. with the 38 other states get the funds, or did they shortchange themselves or greet -- by agreeing to it early? guest: that is a great question and i think it is restricted to ones that have not expanded yet.

but, i think this is also trying to solve a problem in terms of getting people covered, and really, especially in the middle this comes as part of the covid-19 emergency package, really trying to get people covered during this critical time, and especially when people are losing their jobs. you know, i do not know how blue states and states who jumped on immediately are feeling about it, what i have not heard any complaints about it. and, especially because as we are speaking, there is not a guarantee that this incentive will work, so if none of them take it up, they are not going to be having thse x -- these extra dollars. host: let us talk to michael

from astoria, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a son on medicare, and i am not knocking medicare. here is my situation. i worked not only 41 years, i paid into social security, into medicare, medicaid, and now i am retired. here is the thing, i still have to pay in, but the people in medicare do not pay anything and i get better benefits than i do. my son gets better benefits than i do. we need to change that from medicare -- from medicaid over to medicare. we are paying dearly. i had to get a second insurance company to pay for my benefits that i paid into for years and years. medicare -- medicaid, my son gets free medevac.

i have to pay. that is not right. we should not have to keep paying. there is something wrong with this. medicaid and medicare, i think medicaid should not be touched because it is paying my son for everything it needs. so why increase it? let us look at us elderly people. host: before you get into his comment, can you explain the difference between medicare and medicaid. we are talking about medicaid right now, but can you give us for our audience, a little bit about the differences between the two programs. guest: medicare is generally, although certain populations could qualify a little earlier, generally it is for older populations, for people 65 and up. and as this man was pointing out, they have a different set of services, and a part b, that

was what i was thinking about as he was talking was the coverage under medicare. if you do not mind me responding to the comment, i know -- i am not sure if all of it has to do or if all of his concerns have to do with drug costs or things like that. but i know that a lot of the democratic backed drug pricing proposals are focused on medicare costs. and, are focused on medicare relief and things like that. and so, they are a completely different program and sometimes there is overlap if you are dual eligible. generally the medicare program is for older adults, and tends to have different sets of benefits from the medicare -- medicaid population. host: we talked a little bit earlier about the unique situation that oklahoma and

missouri find themselves in right now. can you explain a little bit more about what is going on in oklahoma and missouri? guest: i know a little bit more about missouri than oklahoma. oklahoma it is a matter of when they are implementing their policy. missouri recently, you know i was double checking this before speaking to you, and there is already a lawsuit around this. voters last year decided to adopt the medicaid expansion policy, but the governor said really recently that he is repealing -- refusing to expand it. this is due to lack of funding from the general assembly. so now this is subject to a court case, so this will be interesting to watch. to see how this turns out. host: and missouri, was there a vote in this previous election? was this a ballot initiative?

how does the state know that the citizens want today's? guest: i believe it was a ballot initiative. and actually that is something that will be interesting to watch. a lot of advocates and these states are pursuing ballot initiatives but, obviously that also sometimes opens another conversations about the role of ballots, what should be allowed in and things like that, and so, that will be something worth watching. having medicaid expansion show up on a ballot is not a unique situation. host: let us go back to the phone lines and talk to david from clarksburg, west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. you are on. caller: i have medicaid and medicare.

and if i would not have it, i would not be able to live. i live on a fixed income, luckily my state did what they needed to do, i have several health problems, and without it i would not be able to survive. and i am very thankful for it. and i hope these other states where the republicans are running it realizes that they are hurting their people. they need to help them. i do not understand this. it is therefore the people. you know? we need to do something about this, people are suffering. we just went through one of the worst crises in the united states and they do not want to help the people. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i think he raises also arguments that republicans, this is what makes them a little bit

politically vulnerable and this depends on the state that they are in. there are some obviously other voters and constituents that do not want to this because it is on the basis of obamacare. this is something that advocates really argue is that people have benefited, and people have access to health insurance when they probably could not beforehand. and so, i think sometimes this puts republicans in a tight spot, and there are questions about if not medicaid expansion, then what? host: let us go to james from clarksville, indiana. james, good morning. caller: good morning. i do not understand why we do not have medicare for all. i supported the great senator from massachusetts.

she was for medicare for all. i am a republican, but, i will tell you, medicare for all is the solution. the insurance companies sure -- serve no purpose except to generate profit -- profit, that is it. they do not care about you or me. i am on medicare, i am 621 years old and i love it. i get whatever want -- ever i need to get and i paid 20%. i will take that responsibility. we have to get into a point where we take care of our own. we are the only industrialized country that does not have aim national medical -- a national medical situation that takes care of its people. it needs to be done. i think biden might do it. he has shocked me what he has

done. i did not expect him to be so aggressive, to be so good. i was not a biden supporter, i supported that massachusetts senator. i support her, and i like bernie sanders too. bernie kind of blew it when he said stupid things about castro. host: go ahead and respond. guest: he raises an interesting topic that is a topic of discussion in the democratic party right now. right now, you have progressives who want, and i think he mentioned medicare for all and some kind of universal health care coverage, and then you have centrists who are not a fan of the option. he asked why this has not been implemented yet. it is about getting the entire party on board with what they are pursuing.

but then, they have to get it through congress, and that means working with republicans. they do not he -- they do not have enough of a majority to sail it through. that is going to be a very tough list, especially if you are talking about universal health care, single payer kind of option. now, i do want to raise the relationship. just this week, mary -- murray said that she would be working on a public option for people to opt into. and be enrolled in. it is something that is ongoing and discussion, but in terms of its likelihood of getting through college -- congress, unless there is some way to get it through using a super complicated maneuver that would get around the filibuster, it might be pretty hard to convince

a republican -- convince republicans to get through. host: we have a question/statement from a social media follower. i want to know if what he is saying is correct. "i understand that medicaid block grants in texas are based on matching borrowed money put up by local hospitals. after receiving federal funds, the hospital repays the lender, thus making program actually 100% federally funded. then hospitals spend funds in highly questionable ways." is that how the block grants where? guest: i will be honest, i would have to take a closer look -- and how the -- and how texas sponsors there medicaid program. i apologize that i cannot get into details. i know each state uses creative ways to help pay for their

share. you know, just unfortunately, i cannot comment. each individual state really does implement their own program. and so, that would be something we would have to take a closer look at. host: richard from verona, missouri. richard, good morning. caller: good morning. i am from the state of missouri. we voted to put this thing in, and we got a reply -- a bunch of republicans up there who do not want to do nothing for nobody. and i do not see how a senior citizen could vote for a republican myself, i was a republican at one time and i finally woke up, but anyhow, the way we change this thing is go to the damn polls and vote, get somebody in there who wants to do something. we would've had medicare for all

if it had not been for two democrats when obama was in, bacchus and branch lincoln for arkansas, they would not go for a local option deal. but now we got two more of these democrats up there, and we hope we can get to talk some sense and get something done for people. instead of, the big banks and billionaires. they can afford to pay for it. it is just disgusting. we do not even have a functional government anymore with republicans in there. host: how much of a political issue is this medicaid expansion? guest: yes. well, right now it seems to be officially missouri, i am sure that it is a top of mind issue. in terms of politics, during a nonelection year it seems like it could be a lot of attention,

but when it comes to general election and midterm elections, it is really interesting. because something i have come to understand is how difficult it is to message on health care generally. but, i would say that medicaid expansion, especially because it is associated with obamacare, has remade pretty controversial. the conversation really died. even though the incentives are the most recent things that we were discussing, you have watched abdicates really push -- advocates could -- push and keep the conversation going. host: john, who was also calling from missouri. john, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i wanted to compliment you for your great program this morning. it is really good to get this

information out to the public. i wanted to bring you up to speed a little bit in missouri. the ballot initiative that you guys discussed a couple of times, it passed by for ash by 53% last year. and, our great republican governor, mike parson, he did say that he had enough money in his budget to go along with the voters. now, what happened is that our republican legislatures, both the house and the senate, they came out and said they would not appropriate the funds and they had a right to do this because it would shortfall some of their cut projects and so then governor parson walked back his statement where he originally was in favor, and now says he has to go along with the legislature and do what it is appropriate, which is a bunch of baloney.

again, the caller that preceded me made a good point. missouri ends need to go -- missourians need to wake up, go to the polls and vote some democratic people into fix this project thus this problem. we are one of the few states in this country in this dilemma. guest: as he pointed out the situation in missouri will be closely watched. it is just such an interesting situation. it just gets back to that concern now, how they will going to play -- how they are going to pay for it and this is how it is coming down. the governor said that the general assembly did not provide the funding so he is not going to expand. i think this will be such an interesting case to watch. it will be interesting where it comes down. and, i do not know if it has

more influence in the other states. it might influence other ballot initiatives, but this is something that i will certainly be keeping an eye on. host: one of the concerns i've heard from states about past government programs is that what do we do with the money from the federal government ever stops? that seems to be the concern that comes up again and again. have we ever seen the government stop funding a program like this after they start it? is that a valid concern? guest: that is a good question and i do not know if i can speak to the history of the federal government. but, in terms of the specific program, we have not seen a disruption yet. and especially after so many states have taken it up and implemented it in the past several years. and so, i thanks that is going

to be a conversation between them and the federal government and what you said earlier, may be having an escape clause, something to guarantee that the state can rollback the program if they ever lose the federal support. maybe something that gives comfort to people and lawmakers who might not be as comfortable without that. host: let us go back to the phone lines and talk to nelson from hollywood, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. one of the things that is not being discussed is the rampant fraud that is taking place regarding the medicaid and medicare programs. i am a seven -- i am 72 years old and retired. my daughter is severely mentally handicapped, and she is both on medicaid and medicare. so, certainly i am not against that.

but the fraud that has taken place is remarkable. fly-by-night organizations are coming along. they are taking advantage of elderly immigrant populations, and then these elderly people who are victimized find themselves owing the government hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars because their name was used. when they were not really entitled to medicaid collections, and i am wondering if you might be able to address this issue. thank you. host: go ahead. guest: unfortunately, i do not know enough specifics about this particular situation. i do know that fraud and abuse of any government program, but

also medicare and medicaid, that is always a concern. i know lawmakers always want to have oversight of these programs, and in all honesty, i think also, especially with those who are elderly, i think there is a lot of concern. -- concern about fraud and abuse , not even specific to medicare and medicaid, that will certainly be a part of it and that has been a concern during the pandemic, especially. so i apologize i cannot give a specific response to that situation, but there is always a desire for oversight, especially when you are talking about programs with as much money and funding and it impacts as many people as it does. caller: let me just share with their viewing audience that undocumented immigrants in the

united states are not eligible to get medicaid. they are not participating in the medicaid program, just as a point of information. let us talk to tony, from missouri. tony, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is what is the limits on personal wealth? how would you apply for medicaid? what are the limits for personal wealth? guest: well, certainly there are limits on how much a person can make. and, obviously for the expansion that is what it is addressing. once the state expands, a person who makes at or below 130% of the federal poverty level would be able to enroll. in the non-expansion states, that level can be much lower. you know, much lower than 100%

of the federal poverty level. that is where it really depends on the state that you are in. you know, that is the state of it. typically with expansion, 138% of the poverty double and below is the typical russian level is the typical number. host: let us talk to the caller from arkansas. caller: hello, i do not understand why they do not go with a flat rate all the way across. now what burns me up is there are people who work 35, 40 years, they put into medicare, and you have people in arkansas, i do not know what it is around this area, but there are a lot of people who do not want to work and are lazy. i am not saying everybody should not be getting medicaid but i know a couple who have not

worked and not put enough into it to claim social security, and they are getting medicare, medicaid, food stamps, they are almost in bettors -- better shape than those who have been working for 35 years and do not have to have their social security deducted and then you have to have a deductible and then you are going into close to $300. i would like to see a lot of this welfare stop. it is getting out of hand. i understand that some people need it, but there are a lot of lazy people out there. what they should do with these people that do not have -- that get everything free, they need to go out and get a job or they do not get no food stamps or anything. i know people who get $200 in food stamps and they are getting all of the medicaid, and medicare at the same time. is there any way to solve this problem? if they can have it straight across, everybody pay equal. host: go ahead and respond.

guest: in the last administration, the trump administration really pushed for this idea of work requirements and medicaid, and i believe in some other safety net programs, work requirements are implemented to limit waste. but in medicaid, it was not a new idea, but it was new in some states. and i think the concerns were what i understand was that a lot of people were already working. the work requirements but a lot of complicated documentation on top of it. and so, there are things like that that are of concern, and there are -- and that is another current touch point of controversy between republicans

and democrats. from a conservative point of view, i believe as this man was representing, there is this idea that to help people get back to working and really pull themselves up and things like that while others argue that this is a way to kind of keep people out of the program. and so, that was pushed hard in the last administration and now that we are in a new administration, i think a lot of these are in limbo and a lot have been subject to lawsuits as well. and so i want to point out that that was a way they were thinking of solving that particular problem. host: let us see if we can get a quick question from joe joe from leblanc's, new york -- bronx, new york. go ahead, we have a couple minutes left. caller: no problem. here is my thing. with the way the world is going right now, i do not know how one

can get medicaid. i understand that the world is currently going to a pandemic. but, if we are going through a pandemic, shouldn't we get more, but people should work for it. i agree with that guy. i'm a firm believer in that. i know you guys have got to go. host: go ahead. guest: that is getting to what a lot of voters and what the last administration was pushed -- pushing was that this idea is that work requirements, work programs should be attached to this. i know that that was a concern. again, this just gets into a very political situation, and it is very controversial in policy. so, i think we are going to see

what is going to come of these leftover policies from the last administration. host: we would like to thank -- thank erin durkin's who is a health-care reporter for being with us and talking about her article "with the promise of more money states consider medicaid expansion." thank you so much. and we would like to thank our viewers, callers, social media followers for being here with us. hopefully you will have a great memorial day weekend. thank you for your service to all of your military people out there. continue to wash her hands and we will see you next time on " washington journal." ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government and we are

funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community? >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled places so students from low income families can get the tools i need to be ready for anything. comcast support c-span is a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front seat to democracy. >> the tech industry is often about the future, it is future oriented and politics is a lot about the present, and that is valid concerns that people have in the present about what technology will mean for them. i am not keen on bashing congress. i do think that any future technology has to answer a lot of concerns about what the impact will be on people, communities, the environment, and those are understandable questions.