>> coming up live today on the c-span networks, the nato secretary general speaks at the brookings institution. that's at 10:00 eastern on c-span. at 1:00, the centers for disease control and prevention marks the 70th anniversary of the epidemic intelligence service program. at c-span two at 10:30 a.m., the washington post hosts the cochairs of the congressional problem solvers caucus, a bipartisan group of house lawmakers. they will be talking about negotiations on infrastructure and police reform. >> coming up in an hour, heritage foundation's jonathan butcher and ashley harrington of the center for responsible lending on proposals to forgive

student loan debt. at 9:00 a.m., paul gionrfiddo of mental health america on the pandemic's impact on mental health and their latest report on suicide amid the pandemic. "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] ♪ >> free times since the start of the covid-19 pandemic the federal government has responded. a new analysis suggests that the latest two rounds, the one of december 2020 and march this year have greatly improved american's economic health. they're able to buy food, pay down debt and to save. now the administration is under pressure to push for a fourth round of stimulus checks. good morning. it's friday, june 4, 2021. this is "washington journal." welcome to the program.

we'll spend the first hour this morning asking you about that prospect. are more stimulus checks needed? the lines are here. if you say yes, it's 202-748-8000. you say no, the line is 202-748-8001. you can always send us a text. that's 202-748-8003. and make sure you tell us your name and where you're texting from. on twitter, we're at twitter.com/cspanwj. we welcome your posts as well. on facebook, it's facebook.com/cspan. that report that analysis of census b.y.u. data from the university of michigan, we will talk with the reporters of that report in a few minutes. but here's the reporting from the "new york times." stimulus checks substantially reduce hardships, studies show. they write that in offering most americans two more rounds of stimulus checks in the past six months totaling $2,000 a person, the federal government effectively conduct a huge experiment in safety net policy.

supporters said a quick broad outpouring of cash would ease the economic hardships caused by the coronavirus pandemic. skeptics call the policy wasteful and expensive. the results are being scrutinized they say this new analysis serves or suggests, argues that the two latest rounds of aid significant write improved america's ability to buy food and reduce anxiety and depression going the poorest households and those with poorest children. the analysis offers a fullest look at hardship reduction under the stimulus aid. and here is a quick look at the pay-out so far during covid-19 from the federal government. the first one was in march of 2020. and that was $1,200 per adult and $500 per child.

and in december of 2020 last year, $600 per adult and child and the most recent payment was $1,400 per adult and child. but the pressure is on the administration for a fourth round of stimulus payments and we'll read into some of that in a bit. this is some of the reporting of that from fox 8 there. their headline, fourth stimulus check by the administration happy to listen but focused on jobs. they write that the biden administration is stopping short of shooting down hopes of a fourth stimulus check but signal thursday that the president is focused on "putting people back to work rather than short-term relief." here's the president's press secretary jen psaki. >> on the fourth stimulus check idea, i know a month ago, you said stimulus checks aren't free and it's up to congress to decide whether to move forward on that. i'm wondering at this point,

does the president support that idea or does he believe that his american jobs and family plans provides enough that a fourth stimulus wouldn't be necessary? >> i think as i said at the time, when you asked this before, the president certainly opened to a range of ideas. and there are some who are wanting the elimination of the assault reduction and some who are making the -- he's happy to hear from a range of ideas on what would be most effective and what's most overnight in economy moving forward. but he's also proposed what we thinks is going to be the most effective for putting people back to work and also to making us more competitive over the long term. >> and just to clarify, the president does support an extension of the family child tax credit it's going to take effect next month. >> in his american family plan, he has proposed it. host: on that proposed potential fourth round of payments, this is a yahoo! finance.

fourth stimulus check in jeopardy while the last payment keeps divisibling. -- dwindling. that is fast running out and there's no fourth stimulus check in the work. millions of struggling americans are asking for more relief and pay down debt and scores and lawmakers are fighting to keep the money flowing. there's it's -- that's our question for you this morning. are more stimulus checks needed? 202-748-8000 for yes. and no is 202-748-8001 let's hear from todd, first up from miss la, michigan. he says no. good morning. caller: good morning. this is just putting a band-aid on a major problem.

they think that people are going to go for it. that's not the answer. this president' lied about everything he campaigned out, the infrastructure, the health relief giving them the extra $200 a month. i can go on and on. you know, it's about time that the super rich, they're paying their share of taxes and we start getting some jobs. i'm retired now. i'm could use the money. but it's just a bunch of b.s.. it's time to get real about what's happening in our country. host: in somerville, massachusetts. this is mike. good morning. caller: hey, bill. hey, that last caller was pretty interesting because i agree fully, but i do agree that a band-aid is needed. i don't think a band-aid is the solution. but, yeah. i agree. i mean, this country has been so

brainwashed into this rat brain's mentality. i don't know. demonization of any safety net whatsoever while corporate interest just completely, completely take over -- take advantage of the average person. and, you know, i'm living it up here in boston. i'm fine. i'm educated. i make a high income. but i just -- i cannot believe the things i hear from my fellow americans in this country when it comes to safety nets, when it comes to just not acknowledging how bad that the average person has it in this country. and it's getting worse and worse and worse. and everyone's being taken advantage of here. this is the u.s. we have the resources. we have the resources for people

to not suffer in abject destitute poverty. and even the middle classes. you know, you can't buy a home. and we're getting so screwed on health care and it's just about everything. i can't believe. i cannot believe how brainwashed people are. host: and mike, you said you were fine. so did you get any of these stimulus payments or did members of your family get these payments? caller: yeah, i got some kind of smaller stimulus, i guess, because i don't make -- you know, i make just about six figures and, you know, i don't have kids. i don't have any of that and i don't plan on it. there are other reasons, but, you know, also i can't imagine doing it financially these days. it's just like insane. and i don't really care about

buying a house other than a financial investment. maybe one day i will. host: ok, mike in massachusetts. we welcome your calls. are more stimulus checks needed? 202-748-8000, the line for yes. you say no, the line, 202-748-8001. we are joined next by luke schaefer who is the university of michigan professor of social justice and social policy. and one of the authors of the analysis of census bureau data along with his colleague patrick cooney. professor schaefer, welcome to "washington journal" this morning. guest: thank you. good to be with you. host: the poverty solutions report from the university of michigan. material hardship and mental health following the covid-19 relief bill in the american rescue plan act some you looked at the two most recent payments the ones in march of this year in december 2020. guest: yeah. the census bureau has been interviewing a representative symbol of folks all across the

united states trying to figure out how they're doing during this time. so there are a number of these questions with things like have you been able to put enough food on the table? are you having trouble meeting your basic bill? and we can track that from december through april to say how things are going as they do two rounds of stimulus payments as well as other things, like unemployment insurance that roll out to see what kind of impact they're having and maybe how the economy is also helping as well. host: this is data from the census bureau. i think you refer it to the household report? guest: it's called the pulse report. it's something that when covid hit the census bureau thought we might need have some real-time information into what people are doing so they moved very quickly and put this together and a lot of us researchers have been following it since about last may.

there are some questions about how the measures could be could be measured but we've been following it since last spring on a number of these questions. host: and your analysis puts graph to paper. it makes visual the data and you what just mentioned. would be the questions they asked. sometimes not often not'd food in the last seven days. explain these peaks and valleys. you had the covid relief bill in 2020 and you see a peak after that and the valley afterwards in the data. guest: that's right. so you can see really, that the data really followed federal government action. so we did a lot last spring in 2020. and there's a lot of evidence that they really helped the hardship that day. not not to say that it was perfect cannot to say that people weren't hurting. but last fall, we were waiting for the government to decide to

do more. and then they acted again at the end of december in the covid relief bill and we immediately see these hardship numbers fall. and then they acted again and again, you see the sharp decline. so when we look at the few months period since the end of december, we say tat the fraction of american's according to the survey who report they didn't have enough food last week fell by over 40%. and that equates to about 7.4 million fewer adults and five million fewer children saying now that they did have enough to eat in the last week. and a fraction of american's saying they can't manage their usual household bill falls by 45%. and you really see it up the income latter. they -- the biggest brunt of to the improvement is among

families who are low income, as well as families with children who experience the most hardship of any household type. host: one of the data points, that 20% drop in anxiety and depression. it's not just about the economics but it's about the emotional well-being of american's and looking on the chart as it falls off. does the analysis show that it's pretty much strictly related to those payments or are there for the factors in terms of the emotional well beg of people responding to that -- well-being of people responding to hat? guest: yeah, we can't get deep into the causity. but you see the huge drop-off and that gives me a ton of confidence. you can see the numbers really respond to that. we have the unemployment insurance too that's providing a

buffer for families. and, of course, you know, with anxiety and metal, you might imagine as we're getting out of the covid crisis that's starting to improve. but we're getting more and more research that links directly financial stress to these mental health outcomes, right? you imagine what has a big of an impact on whether or not i'm anxious or whether or not i'm depressed than not having enough money to meet your basic needs? and not having enough money to put food on the table, right? so we're quite certain that these measures are a part of that story. host: you're the director of the social policy and poverty solutions center at the university of michigan and a professor there. have you ever been able to track these types of government payments in other instances before? guest: well we haven't really had the real-time data. and, you know, i'll say the two

things that brought this together and we were just -- when we started in on this report, we weren't going in to prove anything we really just wanted to look at the data and give the most comprehensive view of how these things have fallen. and i have to say i was just really -- i expected improvement but a 40% improvement, impacting millions of millions of american's, it struck me as dramatic. and we've never really from a social policy standpoint, we've never really done anything this robust in terms of a safety net. the stimulus payment didn't leave out the poorest american's which previous stimulus payments have done. they went out immediately. we've gotten good at them, not to say that they're perfect, but to say that a huge slot of the american public is getting access to these. unemployment insurance was greatly expanded during this period of time. i don't think we've appreciated what a positive thing that's

been for the economy, even right as the spending kept going. so you pair this robust social safety net from the federal government with this real-time data and we could see these effects so clearly in those charts that we thought it was an important message that we wanted to share. host: lastly, we're reading stories on the program of potentially a fourth round of stimulus, certainly advocates on capitol hill and elsewhere for that. if that were the case, would your center track those, the data on those as well? guest: absolutely. we would track the data on that. i liked what one of your callers mentioned about thinking about what are we doing in the long term? so you can see these stimulus payments matter in the moment. and there's, i think, a ton of value, right, in that. but what happens if we get further and further away from them? so the thing that i'm most

interested in right now is the expansion of the child tax credit. that's going to start to roll out not in sort of a one-time shot in the arm but in a monthly payment to families with children all over the country and we see in these data that family with children have the high fest -- so providing that effort, stable cash support. it will roll out in july. it won't be sort of the very thing like a stimulus check but it will be a smaller monthly check. host: right. guest: for families, that they can build on. they can go to work. they don't lose it if they go to work. that will be a really, really interesting thing to see how that rolls out and continue to just learn the wless sons from these stimulus payments and the expansion. host: the report is from the university of michigan. professor luke shaefer, one of the authors along with his colleague, patrick cooney. we appreciate you joining us this morning. guest: my pleasure.

thanks for having me. host: we will continue your calls and comments this morning. are more economic checks needed? 202-748-8000 the line to call if you say yes if you say no, it's 202-748-8001. tom's in new york and on the no line. thanks for waiting, tom. go ahead. caller: thank you very much, c-span. i say no. i got my first stimulus check from mr. biden and within a couple of months, my food went up, my gas went up, my rent went up. the $1,400 he gave me got taken right back off me again. so i'm competing against illegal aliens to try to work out east. they give them $15,000 to break our laws, come across our border. they take my work. i got to compete and lower my prices. it's hard enough to live on long island and out east. these people are the richest people in the world. they've got all the money. >> what's your line of work, tom?

caller: i do construction. and it's very, very difficult to get work. they've got help wand signs everywhere but if you go in and you ask for a certain amount of money to try to live out here, to try to sustain and feed your family, you get told no. there are other guys that are getting paid cheaper. they come here, they are desperate. they need money. i don't blame them. but our government who is supposed to be taking care of these laws, we elect them to take care of us. they allow these people to come here like this they steal our work. and then they tell us that we're racist. i'm sick and tired of it. host: we'll go to the yes line this is charles in new orleans. caller: hi. host: go ahead, charles. caller: ok. what the last caller has stated not because of illegal aliens quote-unquote situation for me,

not a millionaire. i'm not a billionaire. i work at a restaurant. when covid first hit, it was a panic having a job. they reesed so many of us, me and my coworkers from the job. and we were told the reason why it was because we had covid-19. none of us had that. none of us had covid-19. the employees that i'm in touch with now, we don't have covid-19 even up to this point. and we've been put out of work. so, stimulus checks came through like the other caller said everything went up. and they're going to recoup this money back. i'm kind of nervous right now but it's just a little bit upsetting because i feel like we are being trifled with, we're being played with. and down the line, taking these vaccines so we can get back to work, i just find it's

disheartening and sickening that we can be put out of work like this and played with by these elective officials and politicians and these talking heads. everybody in the seat of power. you know, they don't have to deal with this. they get the make-up if they're going to give themselves raises they're the ones dictating all these people get to go back to work or not if you take a vaccine. no concern for your health. no concern, no liability. but yet we are still out of work. open this economy back up. i'm seeing more and more people for 16 months who haven't had not an itch of covid-19 and we're taking these vaccines and are getting sick but yet we're being told if you want your life back, you got to take these vaccines and get back to work. 99.9% recovery rate is the proof in the streets when i do get out here and put applications out.

host: and are you currently not working, charles? caller: i'm currently not working. i'm looking for work. i've gone to different places. i've been the manager at restaurants. i've worked in offices. did construction work. and it's just all tied up and we're sitting here waiting for stimulus checks and of course you're able to buy food and put some money towards your bills. i'm not going to turn that down. but it's not like you get the check every week. or every other -- host: all right. we'll go to brad in lily, kentucky. welcome. caller: i sympathize with the two former callers. the trouble with the money sent out to us, you know, we shouldn't be -- native money. of course a check would help a whole lot but when the government is able to take this action that can shut down the economy who even knew that was a thing that you could do? but they did. so if they have the ability to do that, we're in trouble.

i mean, we're in trouble from here on out and if we give them the ability and don't push back. one of the relief bill was $6 trillion just to tell people that might make them sick to their stux but $6 trillion, you could have sent 300 million people $20 apiece. how much of that have we seen? host: all right. to mary jane, next up in brook park, ohio. question for you this morning is more stimulus checks needed? what do you say, mary jane? caller: i say yes. it needs to come to older people that ron social security, that are only getting $800 a month to live on. why rrnt they raising that to at least $1,000? so we can survive? we paid into it. it really aggravates me.

host: president biden spoke last month, the plouffering plant in cleveland about the effects so far on the stimulus payments. president biden: i don't have anything against in wall street, but wall street did not build this country. [applause] and union built the middle class. the million dollar class built this country. that's a fact. regardless of their background and regardless of their religion or race. that's the approach reflected in the american rescue plan which my friends in the congress help get passed. because of that law, we're -- 167 million american's got their

rescue plan. they paid their ren, pay their bills, and most important, giving them for the first time some hope. a little bit of hope. hope goes a long way. those checks matter. host: some comments on the twitter. are more stimulus checks needed? this is from steve two tweets why are so many people stingy about help the less fortunate? it appalls me to see there. hideous -- their hideousness about health, food, rent and bills in general. some people are doomed to analyst sis -- and this one says the stimulus payments don't provide health care and you can imagine how many american's are putting off health care because they're laid off. regular check health exams prevent long-term illness. millions are going without health care. next is bill in katy, texas. good morning.

caller: good morning. i'm not against stimulus going to people that really need it. but this money is just going out so fast. my wife and i retired. we have a very good income in. 2019, we made over $240,000. last year, in 2020, we only made $155,000 because we didn't have take the require minimum distribution but we each got checks of $1,400. i think that's ridiculous. that money is just throwing out you get these people calling out that don't have very much like that lady in ohio and yet they just throw this money away. i'm going to take this money and i'm probably -- well, we've given it to charity already but i just can't imagine how we keep throwing money and our president just thinks that he can just keep writing checks and writing checks and he's doing a great job and then, to top it all off, i get this letter from him the

other day telling my wife and i how wonderful he is because he gave us this stimulus money. i think it's crazy. thank you. host: robin is in missouri who says yes, more stimulus checks are needed. go ahead, robin. you're on the air. caller: i think president biden is doing the right thing. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. go ahead. caller: hello? host: you're on the air. go ahead. caller: great. so i think president biden is taking the right course on this and i think he will figure out if the fourth stimulus check is needed or not. i think it needs to go to people, maybe making less than $50,000 a year as individual. so it needs to go to the people who need it the most. and i think that's the right course of action. and all these people calling in with these crazy ideas about inflation took away $1,400. i don't think gas and food went up by so much that it took away

$1,400 of your money. that's ridiculous. so, yeah. let's stick with the fourth stimulus check for people who really need it. host: did you get any of those stimulus check? we lost him. we'll go to john in raleigh, north carolina. hi, there. caller: hi. good morning. host: morning. caller: i believe that another check would be helpful to a lot of people because, you know, as the other caller said, cost of everything is going up now, meat, milk, pretty much everything, gas. but the minimum wage haven't gone up in forever. in a really noticeable or appreciate way. so the average worker, blue collar is just beating themselves to death to jury keep up. so, yeah. the stimulus checks helped a lot of people pay bills, and just live normally after a year of

being shut in to your. it's nice to be able to do a little something for yourself occasionally. host: tom brought up the minimum wage we'll hear from the jobs number for may that comes up at about 8:30 or so. but on wages in general this is a piece from the "new york times." when millions of workers were getting lay-off notices, sharon got something different, a raise. target where she was earning $13 an hour stocking shelves and gave frontline workers hazard pay in the early months to the pandemic. the company raised starting pay permanently to $15 an hour and paid out a series of bonuses to hourly employees. the extra pay combined with relief checks in the federal government and the four savings means ms. mcgowan who is 62 will emerge in better financial shape. i did save a bit of money given

what i was doing what i usually do. i would look at my bank account and i was really happy with it. the "times" where is that workers in retail, hospitality and other service industries bore the brunt of to the lay-offs but many of those who held on to their jobs saw their wages rise even during the worst months to the pandemic. now, as the economy bounces back, employers need to find staff workers have the kind of leverage that is more typical of a prolonged boom than the aftermath of a devastating recession. average earnings hit $15 an hour in february for the first time in record. -- back to your calls, nathan in caller: las vegas, welcome. caller:good morning america, i

am against any kind of stimulus. they should never have given any money at all. excuse me. at all, period. simply because the government -- it is not the governments job to take care of your family and take care of everything, that is supposed to be our job as a man and a woman, and as far as the virus and the vaccine, i would have the individual people pay for those two. there are 30 million americans in this country who do not pay their medical bills anyway who are making excuses not to pay their bills, so there is no evictions and i know there were food stamps, so i donated this money? the biggest mistake was giving the people the money and i know i know i do with my money. i went straight to the cap table with my money. host: how did you do with the cap stable? caller: i was doing good. that is what i do for a living, set the odds and play sports

bets and stuff, but the bottom line is, the money should have never been given out, period, no money for everyone simply. it is as simple as that. i am guaranteeing that you're getting food stamps and shelter, what are you going to spend the money on? and makes no sense at all and the shutdown, i did not agree with the shutdown. but as far as the stimulus checks go, we are americans, ok. true americans do not need the help from the government and you have family, you have churches, you have charities, the government should stay out of the business, instead, we live in -- with the latest -- least capable lead. in society that cannot sustain itself but they are rewarded with goods and that are confiscated from the real producers in this country. host: we mentioned a couple of times the potential for a fourth round of stimulus checks being

pushed by a number of people, including by the democratic side in congress, this is the headline from business inside, the push forward for the stimulus as democrats want to include them in infrastructure. a letter from seven democrats in particular, it said in part, the pandemic has served as a stark reminder that families and workers need certainty in crisis, they need to put food on the table and a roof over the head. they should not be at the mercy of shifting legislative timelines and ad hoc solution. direct payments and un-enhanced payments are the most effective form of relief available. and only do they help families and keep workers out of harvey, they act as an economic stimulus by increasing spending and supporting jobs, from representative jimmy gomez, judy chu, jimmy panetta, and brad schneider. washington, d.c. is next, this

is helen. caller: yes, good morning. yes, i would say we should get that stimulus. just yesterday, we got a notice that a -- i am trying to pay my bill and pepco is going up, our electric bill is going up. every time we get a left up or whatever, things start going up. food is out of this world. i do not understand how this gentleman from las vegas, he is going to pay his stimulus and go bedding. i do not understand it. -- and go betting. i do not understand it. i think we should get more stimulus. host: carla in wayne city, illinois. caller: hello. host: hi, you are on the air. caller: i would say no. i mean, i am on disability

myself and i just think that if he wanted to do another stimulus, he should have upped the stimulus the last time and use the money he put back in for 2023 instead of getting a new bill going and making our debt higher, we should have brought it down instead of going into this new bill and trying to get more stuff put into it so they can get what they want for it. and i think it is crazy, so i would definitely say no. host: gary in woodstock, maryland. he says yes. good morning, gary. caller: good morning. yes, i agree, there should be another stimulus, but the government as being irresponsible in the way they are distributing this. i am a retired, my wife and i are be hard, i know many people are in our situation. we were not affected by covid, we should not have received a stimulus. the government should have a plan whereby people can

communicate with them and let them know whether or not there income was affected by covid and if it was, then they take the stimulus. if they report that they were affected by covid and they filed their taxes in the filing -- in the following year, they should have paid back. host: why do you suppose the government does not give you that ability to opt out of those payments? caller: too complicated for them. they should set up a system where they can. it should not be going to people who do not need the money. it should go to people who need the money, to pay their rent, buy food. host: thank you for your call. an event we covered last night from massachusetts, the headline here in the new york post, the ny post.com, he says pence and trump do not see eye to eye on january 6, but the gop must move forward. the former vice president

speaking at the blinken dinner in new hampshire last night. [video clip] are not we have been through a lot last year. the global pendant -- >> we have been through a lot last year. the pandemic, civil unrest, the divisiveness of the election, and tragedy at the capitol. as i said that day, january 6 was a dark day in the history of the united states capitol. but thanks to the swift action of the capitol police and federal law-enforcement, violence was quelled, the capitol was secured, and that same day, we reconvened the congress and did our duty under the constitution and the laws of the united states. president trump and i have spoken many times since we left office. and i do not know if we will ever see eye to eye on that day.

but i will always be proud of what we have accomplished of the american people over the last four years. host: former vice president last night in new hampshire, you can watch all of that at c-span.org, also to let you know, this weekend, we will have coverage from the north carolina republican convention, like coverage saturday of former president donald trump speaking to the convention and that is coming up at five: figure -- 5:30 eastern live on c-span.org and you can listen live at the c-span radio app. on the reporting from the university of the census bureau data, economic reporter for that washington post just died tweeting this, the data after the payments -- reporter for the washington post, jeff stein tweeting this. a 20% decline in anxiety and depression. this is linked to that new york

times article, our question for you, are more stimulus checks needed you stay s -- if you say yes, (202) 748-8000 is the logical. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. tell linda in southaven, mississippi. hello, there. caller: hello. yes, we desperately, seniors could use more money, food costs have risen tremendously. every time you go to the grocery store, where i was paying $35 a week, it is now $75, $85 a week. laundry detergent, just basic needs, we would greatly appreciate it, seniors would. not all of us have extra retirements, some of us are social security dependent.

i care for an elderly husband and you get no assistance. host: linda, the payment that was in march, at the $1400 payment, how long would that have a positive effect for you? how long could you stretch that given as you say the rise in food cost, etc.? caller: i still have some left from it. i tried to budget my groceries, but like i said, where i spent $35 a week for my husband and i, it is now $75 and $80 and that is just totally food. that is not telling the cleaning supplies or the laundry detergent, basic needs, deodorant. yes, we could use it. yes. thank you. host: we appreciate your call.

maryland, on that yes line, denise, hello, there. caller: hi. hello. host: you are on with us. caller: yes, yes. i agree that we should get the stimulus checks. however, i did not get the last two because of my salary. to some of the callers who called in and said they did not think anyone should get it and people just using the money for other things other than what they needed for is crazy because people are here starting in line, miles of lines trying to eat. even though i did not get a stimulus check and have a decent income, i had problems with my rental property, the house that -- to help me pay my bills because i could not get my rent money. for some people to get on the line and say that nobody needs the money and the government should never have paid it out is

ludicrous. yes, we needed and to the other color who just called, yes, everything has jumped, from gas to food, everything has doubled. and as far as african-americans, when they were talking about reparation and they were saying that they cannot figure out how to pay reparation back to the ancestors of the african-americans in the united states, well, now they know how to do it, send a check to them. they government can do whatever they wanted -- host: joe in arizona. hello, there. caller: hello, first-time color. i appreciate what you guys do. ok. i hear everybody complain about everything going up, yes, the radical president that they voted for. i live in arizona, i voted -- we have the illegals coming across the border and instead of making

$10 where they live, they will come to the united states and undercut my pay and work for $10 an hour instead of being -- me being $20 an hour. yes, there are people hurting who are elderly like my mom who complain about everything going up the other day, yes, it is because of the radical people on the left. if they just pull up their pants and get back to work, things will be fine, but i do not want to hear people complaining about being poor. i have been poor for 50 years because these illegals come and take my job. they are not becoming eye surgeons or ceos, they are taking manual labor jobs. host: what is your line of work? caller: i landscape. host: you work with a company? caller: by myself.

and i work for a lot of elderly people and white a white do it -- and it where do i do it? i -- people will get owed any help, so they cannot afford $20 an hour, i will do it for $15 an hour, but it does not help when i had to illegals coming over and i understand why they make $10 where they live when they can come in tucson, arizona and make $10 an hour, it makes common sense, but you have to do it the right way. host: this is new york times, we referenced the article earlier, they had line stimulus checks reduce hardships, study show studies in that university of michigan, they studied the data, their reporting from the times said that given the scale of this deadliest aid, a total of 585 billion, a reduction in a hardship may seem like a given

and there is no clear way to measure whether the benefits were worth the cost. the study does not address the main complaints that much of the money went to economically stable families who did not really need it and that the checks were part of a pattern aid over the last year that left some people with less incentive to find jobs. analysts say that hardships would have fallen away, fall in any way as a result of job growth and other safety net programs. this is the new york times. in marshfield, massachusetts, diane, hello there. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: i agree that people need stimulus checks. a lot of people in this country have really hurt and like that lady said, people are in line just to get food. some people were very embarrassed about that. but they had to do it to feed their children. we have children in this country

going hungry. and my daughter is a single mother and she had a daughter and i am trying to help her and my husband and i can't afford it. we are 80 years old. host: has the stimulus payments help your daughter? -- helped your daughter? caller: yes. i cannot do it anymore. my husband and i, we are retired and we are trying to pay our mortgage. and there are so many people that are hurting and i just do not understand why we are giving so much money to other countries when we need it here and as far as the u.n. and the world health

organization, i think other countries should help contribute to help people in other countries. president biden said now he is going to give $80 million of vaccines to other countries, but we still have children here that are not being vaccinated and i have some grandchildren that are not even vaccinated yet. and i think he should make sure that every american gets their vaccine. host: here's the story diane was referring to, the headline from the wall street journal, u.s. to share vaccines through covax, biden administration to work with the program to export 80 million doses by the end of june. calling next, elk grove, illinois. hello there. caller: good morning. i am not sure that even asking -- i am not sure this is asking the correct question. some of the stimulus check is

going to help everybody. it helped, of course, but it hurt in the long run because i am one of the idiots that lived within my means my entire life, my wife and i never took extravagant vacations or anything, so we were actually living -- might rip -- my wife retired recently, so we were living on on interest and investments, so i feel sorry for older people, that used to be able to get, if you had money, even in a treasury bill not too long ago, you could buy a 90 day treasury for 3%, 4%, now you cannot even get 1/10 of 1%. so people who say, i have a $2800 check for my family but in the long run, you are losing money and the reason everything

is going up, people are saying yeah, we need the stimulus check because everything is going up yet -- up, the reason why it is because of the stimulus check, it is coming from the taxpayer, it is not coming from biden, the government, it is coming from the taxpayer and they are printing money, they are printing the money, so that is why people are raising the prices because the dollar is worth 20% less than what it was a year ago. so, it is kind of ridiculous people do not understand basic economics, the stimulus check is needed for some people, but they are giving it out based on ridiculous parameters, some people could have $1 million in the bank, but if there social security -- their social security is less than a certain amount, it will still get a stimulus check. host: we talked about this earlier, just a reminder, the stimulus check paid so far, the first one in march of 2020 was

$1200 per adult and $500 per child. december of 2020, $600 per adult and child, the most recent payment, $1400 per adult and child in the plan in march of this year. here is cbs weather headline, what is behind the push for a fourth stimulus check, the reporting says the irs issued 167 million payments in the third round of direct stimulus aid with another 1.8 billion people last week receiving that checks, but some lawmakers are pushing for a fourth round of stimulus eight that would send recurring payments until the pandemic and speared so far, the federal response to the economic crisis caused by the pandemic has delivered $200 to each eligible adult -- $3200 to each eligible adult. $600 in that december relief measure and $1400 under the american rescue plan signed by president joe biden.

despite that financial assistance, millions of americans remain in financial distress. what about 4 in 10 people are saying their income remains below pre-pandemic levels. let's hear from barbara in anniston, alabama. hi, there. caller: good morning. i would have to say a hard no unless they become far more discerning as to who they send these checks to. i am sorry, if some people's way of life has been squeezed, that is very different from someone whose life has been turned upside down. for example, people who have two children and are making -- or

making $150,000 a year and then one of them lost their job, so they are down to $90,000 a year, well woe is me, you can live on that. and there are people that have nothing, they should be getting the checks. how about this, government, if you want to help people, how about letting go of the co-pay on the medicare prescription drugs. let the elderly who are living on their medicare and their social security, how about during this time of everything going up, how about the government just forget the

co-pay. i have seen so many people in the pharmacies when they see what their co-pay is for their prescription drugs, they break down in tears and go through the medications and decide what they will and won't take. and to me, that is probably the saddest thing i have ever seen. host: we go to brenda in los angeles. caller: yes, good morning. i am on social security only and i have been receiving the stimulus checks. i have so many medical co-pays from operations and i have been using the money properly by catching up on my medical bills and i was able to just pay them

all off. i just had surgery on the 21st, so in a few months, i will have more medical co-pays, but the thing is, i used the money the way it was intended. that gentleman who was complaining to my husband about people getting that stimulus checks and what did he do with his? he went to the casino. he has such an intelligent individual. he did not use has money properly. if he is opposed to it, send it back to the government. i have been using my money properly. and i appreciate it very much and it is up to the government to decide if we get anymore. it does help me a lot and i do appreciate it. host: that is brenda in california. from the washington post, the picture up on the treasury

director secretary larry summers , the head of the council of economic advisors, the story, the headline says right and calls for critics of his economic agenda, he recently called former treasury secretary a democrat, who has been critical of economic agenda technology summer's concerns and asked him take explain his objection concerning three people of knowledge with the private exchange, biden made the call as though white house is weighing critical decisions on the economy, including how much and whether to trim a far-reaching infrastructure plan in response to the republican demand. the conversation unfolded in the backdrop of warnings from summers and others that biden's spending plans resent a risk of inflation and an overheating economy, some pushback from the staff directors of budget committee in the senate and senator sanders chairing the committee, this is -- a daily

reminder that larry summers was wrong on $2000 checks, wrong on wall street bailouts, wrong on job killing trade deals, wrong on 09 -- wrong to oppose a wall text. whatever he advises -- wealth tax. caller: hello, there. i have quite a few things to say. first of all, over 50 million people live below the poverty line -- they do not even get more than $30,000. women have been affected -- affected so badly because they are the ones -- i keep hearing about the men who do not need money. these are children that the men have walked away from.

they are below the poverty line. you are so happy, then give it back. 61% of the people made -- why don't you talk about them? why do you look at the people who have never been hungry and you have the nerve to say that they do not need it. where are you? this is what is wrong in america, you do not know how to be proud, you do not know how to take care of your people, you only complaint. if you do not want it, give the money back. i am tired of these people who are mad, but yet you take the money. if you do not want it, give it back. i do not care what you may, so what is going to happen with 50% of you are poor? host: georgia next, this is dustin. caller: i say absolutely not,

several of your callers hit on it, gas was $1.66. we want with gas -- without gas for a week and it was close to four dollars a gallon. the other thing is, instead of giving everybody $1200, one of your first callers said they put -- instead of everything that everyone getting $5,000, we got 1200 and the rest goes overseas and also about the illegal aliens, i consulted with the government 10 years ago and was on a conference call with obama's right-hand man and his lackey and he said in the conference call that illegal aliens and that welfare state is a national security threat. this was in 2010. so, this is ridiculous, we are spending i think $600 a week right now on who knows how many

illegal aliens, 200,000, that is just the ones not working under the table. and then the caller said lowering the wages -- i am not trying to be -- the last thing is we could feed every american that is poor right now -- the ninth circuit -- we cannot get food out, some food banks are being run by restaurants. host: some critics of the spending plan, the stimulus, and the extended unemployment benefits have talked about the effect on the job market, a related story from the wall street journal, their headline, restaurant supermarkets cannot find enough workers to open new locations. the tight labor market is hampering the restaurant supermarket openings, putting a potential check on growth in the

food industry that is being reshaped by the pandemic. sellers are adding stories to capitalize on high consumer spending, as americans emerge from eight year spent at home, but grocers and restaurants say they are struggling to hire all of the workers they want on the stores. they are adding perks and bonuses to entice jobseekers and in some cases, delaying openings. a couple of more calls on our opening question, we will go to new york and joe, hi, there. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say, i am 54 years old and i have diabetes and i am on mental, social security disability and my wife -- i get $10,000 a year in social security and she gets a $10,000 a year in social security. we have no money, we cannot pay our lights. i have a mental illness and diabetes and she has a bad heart

and she is alcohol fetal, we see psychiatrists, so people like us to make $20,000 a year, we live on $11 a week. after we pay the rent, pay our car insurance, and after we pay our phones, we have nothing, people like us -- host: how helpful have the stimulus payments been for you? caller: i was getting my diabetes medicine, i got $180 left and my wife has $200 left, but i will be 65 and my wife is younger than me and she was born alcohol fetal, she has thyroid problems, heart problems, psychiatrist problems, we make $10,000 a year and she makes $10,000. host: thank you for all of your calls this segment. ahead on washington journal, up next, we will be talking about the student debt, the

administration to forgive student debt, we will talk about the pros and cons of that idea with the heritage foundation jonathan butcher and ashley harrington with the center for responsible lending. a new report from the mental health america, this is with thoughts of suicide and depression during the pandemic, the organization's president and ceo john freed out will join us to tell us about that. -- gionfriddo will join us to tell us about that. ♪

>> my objectives were to understand the process, i was a reporter, so i reported the process. i came to recognize that i like two things, i like very much finding out what the story is and i like very much figuring out how to share it. >> peter on his memoir, watching history happen, sharing his insight about his family's estate in poland during world war ii. and publishing books by jimmy carter, bill kelly ben, barack obama, donald trump, and vladimir putin. publisher and reporter peter at -- sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span q&a. listen to q&a where you get your podcast.

>> washington journal continues. host: up next, a conversation on student loan debt and the idea of student loan debt forgiveness and we are joined by ashley harrington, the federal advocacy director and senior counsel at the center for responsible lending and from the heritage foundation, jonathan butcher, the will skillman fellow at the heritage institute. good morning and welcome to washington journal. i want to start with a look at the data from the federal reserve and the amount of student debt out there for those who are dealing with student debt, but the larger viewership and listenership in general. $1.7 trillion in total debt according to federal reserve. the average individual debt is $32,000 -- the average monthly

payment, $393 a month. the median payment on debt is 222 -- the number of student loan borrowers with growing loan balances as 47.5% and the number of borrowers who are more than 90 days delinquent is just under 5% and just for a snapshot of the average debt load of students with student loan debt nearly $30,000. harrington, how did that figure get so big to $1.7 trillion? guest: it is an excellent question. i think so much of it is that we have not kept up our investment in higher education. at the federal or state level. the pell grant has not kept up with a cost of college. we have -- income wages have been stagnant and they have to put more of their income toward more of their -- after the great

recession, there was a 10 building -- $10 billion budget hole and they took that money from higher education. more of that cost was again passed on to families and how did they make that up? they made that up with loans because the grant program has not kept up and they have not kept up. we have failed to hold -- which has also driven up defaults and quincy's. there is so much involved. we have failed to take into account that this is part of a larger system that is inherently an equitable and as the student body got more diverse and moved away from the investment, coincidently, as the student body got my diverse -- got more diverse, we have been moved to this loan based system and the debt-financed model like ours which was an equitable would never work.

now, we just got out of control where people are taking out loans and they cannot pay it back. they are in debt for decades. they are going to keep on -- we have this huge problem, this $1.7 trillion problem, 45 million people, but it impacts more than just them. it impacts our entire economy. it is a failure of public policy that we got here. host: jonathan butcher, ashley calling it a failure of public policy. we know where we are, 1.7 billion dollars, what are the ways to resolve it? guest: for starters, for every federal tax dollars spent on student loans, college tuition goes up by $.60. the more that washington invest itself in providing loans to students, it has allowed universities to drive up the cost of tuition for students and look, these plans to forgive student debt would disproportionately benefit the wealthy, those from upper income

brackets and those who are in graduate programs are the ones who disproportionately carry a larger amount of student debt. so for example, one study finds that the top 10% of earners with loan debt would get six times the benefits of those in the bottom 10% according to income right now. so you're talking about a very regressive solution to this problem of student and large loan balances that they are carrying. what we should be doing is looking at the k-12 system and making sure that students are better prepared when they get to college so that they have the skills they need to finish. thinking creatively about income share agreements as in purdue university where students get funding for school and when they graduate, they repay some of their income in the job that they earn back to cover the cost of going to college. so, look, as -- the biggest thing we have to understand right now is that those that

have the largest amount of student debt are the ones who are in the graduate program that will allow them to get the jobs later that will allow them to pay off those loans. host: ashley, what is the responsibility of colleges at the graduate and undergraduate level to be realistic with students on the kind of loans they take out, the kind of debt that they can handle? guest: i first want to say that there is actually no proven correlation between availability of federal student aid and the cost of tuition in college. that's be clear, that has not been proven in any way and actually, there is evidence to the contrary. also, there is a sector where this is true for and that is the for-profit sector. we can absolutely hold sector accountable and we should over the last administration, we saw that many protections that were implemented rolled back and we are watching the growth of that sector right now. there is absolutely a need for

accountability in higher education and there is a way to do that. that is separate from this -- from what we do to help student loan borrowers. we cannot conflate those two. i think it is absolutely true that there are and equities in our case law system and issues we need to address. call me crazy, i happen to think that we can do both, we can help student loan borrowers, we can fix higher it and fix our k-12 system. i think our federal government is capable of doing more than one thing at once and should given that all of these systems have problems. we cannot just go back and fixed k-12 and act like this $1.7 trillion is going to fix itself. it is not. more than 10% is currently in default and that number is slated to grow and that was before we got to the current pandemic and economic recession. we cannot pretend like this problem is going away and like it does not impact our entire economy. also, we advocate for $50,000 student debt per borrower.

it would this proportionally impact not the wealthy, but the low income, low wealth people, the black and brown people disproportionately struggling under the weight of these prices and we cannot discount how much of an impact it will have. host: jonathan butcher, one of the figures that stuck out to me with the amount of the nearly 40% of increasing -- nearly 48% of increasing loan balance, they are not paying off the interest fees. is there a short-term answer to nip that in but and thereby -- in the bud and thereby reduce that amount until it gets to a band-aid if you will to some of those payments? guest: given the size of the crisis, i am not sure that there is a band-aid. i think especially if you forgive that now, what does that mean for next year and what does the incentive for students to take out responsible levels of debt in the future when they get college loans?

if we say now we will forgive debt, do we do it again in three years? five years? and do we do it for those with lower levels of debt or higher levels of death? you're talking about a short-term -- debt? you're talking about a short-term incentive for students to take out unmanageable levels of college debt. remember that two thirds of americans do not have bachelors degrees. you are asking most americans who have not finished college to pay for the small -- the comparatively small share of those who are going to college now. how is that fair to those who either saved up for college or decided to enter the workforce before going to college to ask them to shoulder the burden. again, of the wealthy who are carrying higher loads of debt in graduate school right now. again, 60% of the debt is held by the highest 40% of earners today. so, how is helping the wealthy going to do something on those at the lower end of the spectrum?

host: ashley, what about the graduate student level debt, is there something that can be addressed there, that category per se is reduced some, so future loans, etc. focus more on the undergraduate level? guest: so first, it is important to remember that income and wealth are not the same. when you're talking about that wealthy people who make up -- you are not talking about wealthy people, you're talking about high income people. you do not know that they are wealthy. in fact, there are many black and brown folks because of the wealth gap in this country that were created in shank sins that have high income, but are unable to build wealth. we have to separate those too. -- those two. they are not the same thing. there are plenty of folks come up i can round in particular, we have to go to grad school to get the same salary that white. get with less education. we have so many in our society

and we cannot have this conversation unless it is nuanced and talk about what is really happening, what borrowers look like. the high income borrower is fictional. that does not exist. only 6% of the 45 billion have loans over 100 k. when we are talking about the 50 k, which -- over 90% of federal borrowers who are in default, this is not the same conversation. it is also not as simple as saying, this is all grant school debt or one type of debt, that is not the case. the typical black borrower, 20 years and debt repayment, still owes 95% of their original balance while the typical white borrower only owes 6%. so there are disparities not only in the amount of debt people have to take out, but how they are able to manage repayment because of and equities in our system. so this is an opportunity, cancellation provides an opportunity to fix the system going forward.

and no, it is not the only answer, it is the first appeared we advocate for -- and then fixing the system, fixing income based repairman, making it -- repayment. figuring out how to help borrowers in default or delinquent, improving accountability and absolutely, debt free college. we do not have to end up here again. we can help student loan borrowers and help future students. it is absolutely doable. host: ashley harrington with us for the center for responsible lending and jonathan butcher with the heritage foundation, the will skillman fellow fellow in education -- your calls and comments welcome, particularly if you have student loan debt. here is how we broken up the lines. for those of you with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, call (202) 748-8000. if you have between $10,000 and $20,000 of student loan debt, that is (202) 748-8001 and

greater than $20,000 in student loan debt, (202) 748-8002. and for all others, no student loan debt, (202) 748-8003 and we welcome your texts on that same line at (202) 748-8003 and we will get to your calls momentarily. jonathan butcher, we will hear from you in terms of giving student loan debt. i want to play the comments of the senate majority leader chuck schumer with a specific proposal he is calling from the president and we will get comments from both of you. here is chuck schumer. [video clip] >> we are here today to introduce our proposal they cancel $50,000 in student debt. are not right, yeah. >> and take a huge burden off so many people in america. college should be a letter up. for too many people -- should be a ladder up. for many people, it is a letter that keeps them down.

long before covid came to our country and put many new yorkers and others out of work, people across the country have been crushed by the overwhelming loan burden that they have had. this debt holds people back. from buying cars, from going on vacations, from starting families, from getting the job they want to get. it is a huge anchor on our economy and there is very little that the president could do with a flick of a pen that would boost our economy more than canceling $50,000 in student debt. it would be a huge push into our economy. the bottom line is, this is one of those things the president can do on his own. senator warren and i have researched this thoroughly, other presidents have done it, not in the magnitude we are asking, but the fact that they have been able to do it shows that there is legal authority. we have met with the president,

we are pushing the president and his people and we are very hopeful that the cry for -- from one end of america to the other takes the student loan debt off our backs will be heard in that white house and we can accomplish this goal and i will tell you one thing. we will not let up until we accomplish this, until $50,000 of debt is forgiven for every student in the country. host: jonathan butcher, the majority leader making an economic argument on -- in calling for the president to cancel $50,000 in the student loan debt. your thoughts? guest: i do not think that is an economic argument, that is a use of rhetoric because you are not -- you may be taking things from students who have debt, but you are shifting to anchor to taxpayers. someone has to pay for that and once again, as i said before, 10% -- the top 10% of earners with loan debt will get six time to benefit of those in the bottom 10%.

there is a disproportionate share of the wealthy that are carrying high levels of debt compared to those at the bottom. so this is a regressive suggestion to forget that up to $50,000. remember too that two thirds of americans not having bachelors degrees, you are shifting the cost of paying largely graduate students with debt onto those who may not have a bachelor's degree. if we really want to create opportunities for students and the next generation, we should make sure that they are prepared -- to finish college if they choose to go there, we should not be advising every child to go to college because that is not the best fit of every student. some students may be successful in the workforce as soon as they finish high school and it is also true that if you finish high school, if you get married before you have children, and they are more likely to stay out of poverty than those who do not follow what is considered the

success sequence. there are basic things we can encourage it in schools and ways to create opportunity without shifting the anchor of student loan debt onto taxpayers. host: ashley harrington, is it fair to ask others to pay for that cancel debt? guest: so first, i want to remind that wealth and income are not the same. so, we cannot continue to say that wealthy borrowers are going to get -- just looking at income, we can't. wealth and income are not the same. also, let's remember that it is not both have bachelors degrees who have student debt, there are folks who are unable to complete their degree. we cannot just look at that bachelor degrees numbers and that -- it does not. there are 45 million people who have student debt and all of them do not have bachelors degrees. let's also remember that we have

already and are going to continue to pay for this. this money is out the door. a lot of it will never be repaid. it is on track to not be repaid. what is -- what it is doing is holding back families, individuals in the entire economy. it is very shortsighted. it is a public good, a highly educated workforce that can actually reap the full benefits of that education, it is beneficial to all of us. if we have folks who can buy houses, and start businesses, who can save for retirement, especially at a time like this when we are not just dealing with the pandemic at a recession, but dealing with an aging workforce, when our economy is facing a lot of things, we all benefit from that. it is so much bigger than just -- it is not nearly as simple as that. we have to think beyond that. there was a reason why at lyndon b. johnson pushed the higher

education act and pushed for actual investment in higher education to reach more people, to reach a low income people, women, because it is a public good and we have to act accordingly. host: let me ask you about the $50,000 proposal before we get to calls. the naacp is calling for the administration to cancel $50,000 in student loan debt. ashley harrington, does your organization, the center for responsible lending support that? guest: absolutely. we are in line with the naacp and we are over 300 organizations who are calling for the biden administration you cancel student debt and $50,000. this is something important to a lot of groups that impacts a lot of populations and people have realized that this is unsustainable and it is having a disproportionate impact on black and brown people. this is not an economic issue, this is a racial justice, racial equity issue. host: let's go to our callers,

you can see the numbers on our screen, we have broken down them by level of student loan debt. if you have no student debt, that number is (202) 748-8003. debbie in flint, michigan. tell us about your situation. caller: good morning. a couple of points. esther butcher points out that -- mr. butcher points out that these uneducated people are paying for our education. that ignores the point that most of us worked. we worked before our education, during our education, and work after our education. and all of us paid taxes. my second point is the last time i had a show like this, i think it was 2016, they were saying that the federal government had made $16 trillion in infrastructure. i do not agree -- host: we lost our color in flint, michigan.

jonathan butcher, she was addressing you, would you like to respond? guest: those that did not go to college -- why should those who did not go to college be responsible for those who are? especially when you have the highest earners with the highest levels of debt being covered by those who did not finish. it is very true that we need a highly educated workforce without question. we need to be creating opportunities for people to succeed whether they go to college or not and regardless of the color of their skin, should be an opportunity for everyone. why should be -- we be restricting benefits when we help those most in need based on the color of their skin? shouldn't we be helping everyone ? black, brown, white, everybody. that is what the american identity is about, creating the opportunity for everyone to secede -- to succeed. host: in fairfax, virginia, under $10,000. caller: i want to preface by

saying that i agree with mr. johnson's proposal, and not everybody who has student debt gets a bachelors degree but i wanted to talk about the correlation between tuition and student loans. i think this kind of structurally driven nine to 10 role that forces them to raise tuition -- can you say more about for-profits and student loans. host: ashley harrington. guest: for-profits are an issue and they have been benefiting off of loopholes for years. the nine to 10 role you refer to, there is a role in the higher education act that for-profits cannot get more than 90% of their revenue from -- the loophole is that does not include v.a. dollars and dollars for veterans and so what are prophets do is to make that other 10% rather than having it

in something that people are willing to invest in, willing to pay for as public and nonprofits do. they got that by targeting veterans and targeting with these low quality, high cost degrees. we have to hold for-profits accountable, they are driving up defaults, they drive up the cost and that is -- there are other ways to do that. if we want to hold -- we have strong regulations, we have a strong on mineral that was rolled back in the previous administration. we have a strong borrowers to repayment rule. the nine to 10 role indus and it was just closed, but we have to have a rulemaking on that. we are hopefully making progress going forward, but we have to hold these institutions accountable and remember that there is a difference, there is a difference by sector and there are ways to do this. these are again not choices, these are things that can be done simultaneously.

we can hold schools accountable and help borrowers. host: jonathan butcher, you mentioned purdue university. what other, in the private school -- that nonpublic universities and colleges are there some best practices, some examples of schools getting student lending right? guest: i think the income agreements of purdue is a good example, it allows students to receive funding for the education while in school and contribute a share of their income once they graduate and have a job after they finish. there are few schools that are starting with such with -- such unique ideas because the federal government holds upward of 90% of all student loans now. washington is applying appeared there is little incentive for schools to change what they are doing. remember, for every dollar of federal money, federal tax dollars, that goes to student loans, college tuition has gone up $.50.

the bennett hypothesis has been proved over and over again. the additions washington has made a student loans has driven up the cost of tuition for all students around the country. host: let's hear from lee in seneca, south carolina. caller: good morning. i would like to call in and ask a simple question. why should a child trying to better themselves going to school have to pay more to borrow money than banks have to up from the federal reserve? why should someone have to do that? especially if it is government -- governed by the federal government. in addition to that, i did not go to college, my wife did, we paid off her student loan together. i did not get free college, she had to pay for her college, we paid the interest. she was stuck in this interest contingency plan that allowed her to pay less than the interest on the loan, thereby the loan never went away, it just kept growing and growing

and it takes advantage of people's ignorance at that point. you should try something because it is the federal government but it is predatory. i hope we can find a way -- host: if you would like to respond, but is typically the current interest rate that people are paying on student loans? guest: the interest rates change every year and they are based on the federal funds rate. i'm not sure what they are this year, but they can arrange depending on the type of loan from 4% to 7%. absolutely, a focus on an income-based payment, you can be in a situation where you're not -- where your payments do not cover the interest and you can watch our balance grow. that is not a problem -- that does not mean we do not need income-based repayment. it is helping people somewhat manage their loans. we need people to be able to try to get by, but it does highlight the brokenness of our system,

we should be concerned that people are watching their balances grow, that people have paid out more than their principal balance and they are still paying off more than their pets will balance but are still paying because of the interest on their loans. we should be concerned about that. but we do not need is another loan -- it will put people in more debt. we need a solution to this problem that is not more debt, the debt system does not work. it does not work for so many people. and again, this is an investment, right? this is an investment for all of us. we all benefit from a highly educated workforce. if we fix not just the student loan portion, we help the 45 million and invest in debt free college and other workforce training programs, which we can do, we can do all of these things, we absolutely can have a better system going forward. and if we cancel $50,000 student

debt loan to borrower, that gives us the chance to have a system that is small enough that we can fix at going forward, that we can fix and come based repayment, that we can fix all of these accountability issues, that gives us the space to do that while also giving 45 million people at the space to live their lives and contribute to the economy. host: i asked harrington earlier about how we got to that 1.7 trillion, but in your view, where was it that things really accelerated and what were the specific programs and causes of that on the federal level? guest: certainly some of it was the higher education act apart of the great society program in the 1960's and that is what teed it up when washington became more involved in the college loan system. it has accelerated since the late 80's as the percentage of those borrowing for graduate school has gone up. the average annual borrowing for those in grad school according to the brookings institution is upwards of $25,000 now compared

to those borrowing our bachelor's degrees which is around 5000. i completely agree that the system is broken, there is no question about that. you won't be able to fix this is done by shifting the burden from those who are getting degrees like doctors and lawyers, right, that will authenticate a debt onto taxpayers. most of whom who do not have bachelor's degrees. shifting the burden it will not fix the broken system and a proposal to have lower income people paying for the college loans of those who are disproportionately wealthy will not help those in need. host: jonathan butcher, at the heritage foundation, ashley harrington that dr. rick that the director of federal advocacy at the center for responsible lending. we are talking about student loan debt. if you are less than $10,000, (202) 748-8000. if you are between $10,000 and

$20,000, (202) 748-8001. greater than 20,000 is (202) 748-8002 and if you have no student loan debt, (202) 748-8003. news on the job front for me, the labor department, a tweet from ben of the new york times with a report saying that u.s. employers inmate added 559,000 jobs, the unemployment rate in may falling to 5.8%. dr. collis, -- back to collis, hawaii. -- back to collis -- calls, hawaii. caller: i heard your topic and it is close to my heart. there is a guy who has a group called student loan justice and i would encourage you to get him on if you can, he is in washington, d.c. my experience -- when i was in college as a dropout, the loans

kicked in, it was insane, i cannot get any kind of -- this was decades ago. i finally did paid off, i have friends in my age group who are now in retirement, in their 60's who are still stuck. there is no potential discharging for bankruptcy even though there has been legislation that attempted, it can never make it through. if this is the only mechanism that can be attempted, i will like to know -- i would like to know what efforts -- i want to hear from these people -- if this was a one-time thing and then discharging in bankruptcy, would that be a solution or how could this be -- all of the people working in this process who worked to help people with student loans, they want to for the hair out of their heads, they are sickened by the process because of the way that the laws are written.

they all hate it. they wanted to be reversed. host: we will get a response. actually first. he may be talking about going to individual bankruptcy -- guest: he is right. the other thing about student loans that make it such a problem for so many people is that it is different from other debt. it is almost impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy whether private or federal. for the federal loans, which are over 90% of the 1.7 trillion, if you default on them, the government has an extraordinary collection power. they can garnish your wages, they can garnish your tax refunds, your social security, so yes, we -- the fastest growing population of people with student debt as people 60 and over -- is people 60 and over.

this is absolutely a problem. and we are advocating for broad-based cancellation for $50,000 across-the-board for everyone so that everyone can be help and so we can fix the system going forward. as i said, it is the first step, but because as johnson said earlier, a band-aid -- as jump said earlier, it is a band-aid -- a band-aid won't fix it. we have to have cancellations so we can fix the system going forward. both for current borrowers because yes, there will still be people with debt after the $15,000 -- $50,000 is canceled and also for future powers. this is not where we should be -- future borrowers. guest: i agree that there needs to be a long-term fix. i think it has to do with getting washington out of the business of providing student loans. but a private share of those -- the private share of the market is smaller than what washington

is providing right now. i think that is why we need to think about these changes like the income share agreement that we talked about before, like making sure students are prepared to figure -- like we said before, you do not have to encourage every student to take out a large loan and go to college. it is a great fit for some, but it is not for all. we have data that shows that if you finish high school, get a job, get married before you have children, you're more likely to reach the middle class and stay out of poverty and those who do not follow that success sequence. there are ways to provide opportunity to create a path to success in the american dream for everyone no matter your background. what we are talking about here with fricative is a debt -- with forgiveness of debt is -- 60% of americans do not have bachelor's degrees and they are going to be covering the costs. host: william in tampa, florida.

good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing me to speak. i wholeheartedly agree with ms. harrington. on all of the elements that she stipulated. i also wholeheartedly disagree with the majority of things that mr. butcher had to say. unfortunately, he is not taking into consideration there is more to student loans than just tuitions and books. you have to also take into consideration many students who are living away from home who have to pay for other things other than just their tuition and books.

in addition, many students do not even achieve employment after their receipt of their certificate or degree, whether they are graduates or less than having a graduate degree. you know, i for one, i have a postgraduate degree and i have been paying my student loan for over 20 years now. and i have seen the entrance continue to grow, i have also consolidated loans, some loans that were that were bearable. i paid off loans that -- that

were variable. i paid off loans, but i still have loans that are still outstanding and i am trying to pay off my loans. the issue is that the way everything is mandated, it is difficult. when you're trying to take care of yourself, your family, and that you are putting more than 50% of what you are making toward paying your loans off -- host: you are calling on a line of less than 20,000, so how much student loan debt do you have and if you are comfortable -- caller: i am paying over 20,000, not less. host: how much a month do you pay? caller: well, i was paying on one loan approximately $800 -- host: monthly eco -- monthly?

caller: yes. i am paying in the neighborhood of 16 hundred dollars every month. host: i appreciate your call this morning, let's get a response from both of our guests. jonathan butcher if you would like to respond. guest: that is a huge amount, a huge amount be paying and that would be -- behind all of this is an admission that college did not produce what we thought it would, right? this guarantee that if you want to college and took out a big long that you would be able to get a job and pay for it later is -- we have the chain the discussion about the what -- what the american dream looks like and how college fits in the equation for different people with different goals in their life. no one should have to carry that -- when you go to college, the

expectation is that you will leave with a degree that lets you pay for it. if you don't, and you wind up with a burden of this debt which is huge, then having created for him that expectation of success that we thought it would -- i agree that there are more costs associated with going to school than just tuition and books. that is also a problem in how the system is set up for people to take on increasing loads of debt without being prepared -- without the expectation that they will get a job later to help them pay for it. that again is why we have to be thinking broader about what the opportunity for students is to be either after high school, in and through college or even through graduate school. host: ashley, what thoughts do you have about williams situation in tampa? guest: that is often the story we hear. that is the case for some the folks and they are paying a significant amount every month, that is preventing him from

doing other things. it is a burden. i think yes, there is so much we have to do, there are reforms that we need to do, that does not take away from the need that we need to address the fact that we have -- it is impacting too much people and impacting our entire economy. it is not sustainable. a lot of the outstanding dollars will not be paid back and so from a practical stance, we are already paying for this and we will continue to pay for this if we do not fix it. we created a system that is too complicated, too many stakeholders, the schools, students, debt collectors, all of this, we created a student loan industrial complex, that's helped 45 million people, advance racial equity, advance -- and fix the system going forward. we can do all of these things. we are acknowledging that the higher education system needs

reform, absolutely, but that does not mean that 45 million people do not need relief. host: to bob with no student debt he says in pittsburgh. caller: i have two quick points. the higher the debt went, the more college professors made, -- the lady made a good point about the majority of black students going to college. they are not intelligent enough to go so i am paying for that. she made the point talking about that and that is the problem with the student debt and everything we had to pay for. host: ashley, would you like to respond? guest: respond? i am sorry. guest: i completely disagree with what he was saying, right? every child, no matter their

background, color of their skin, should have the opportunities, the same opportunities. this is not a question about looking at people based on the color of their skin and deciding whether or not they should go to college. it is completely wrong and i utterly reject that. this is about creating great opportunities. you can take it from there. guest: i am sorry, there are absolutely many intelligent people across all races going to school. let's be clear that black borrowers, black students, black communities have been this invested in since the start of this country. -- have been dis-and vested in since the start of this country. we have done the exact opposite for black communities and black families. this is not a question of intelligence, this is about opportunities and whether the federal government and the state governments will invest in all communities equally. and, you know, from redlining,

from even as recently as what we saw happening with the paycheck protection program, let's not act like we live in an equitable society that all people are getting the same opportunities and the same resources and that it is equitable across the board, but what everyone deserves as an opportunity going forward. i hope we are trying to create a better, more equitable country and part of that is creating a higher education system that works for everyone. at this country is becoming more diverse and we have to create a system at all levels that works for everyone. we have to invest in it. this old notion of racial disparities in anything does not work and it is not sustainable. there have been numerous reports over the last couple of years about hate -- how racial disparities and racial justice and we are not closing the black wealth gap is causing -- costing our economy billions of dollars. whether you believe that or not,

it is costing all of us and we have to invest in that starts with the federal government. the federal government has too often invest in -- invested in everybody else except the black community. host: i am sorry, go ahead. you touched on this early in terms of pell grant, i have a comment on twitter suggesting this. we need to increase the number of pell grant while also returning funding back to state schools so residence tuitions can be reduced again. guest: absolutely. we support doubling the pell grant. we want to close the whole and a education funding at the state level -- and education funding at the state level. we want to and -- that absolutely is a part of the conversation. so, yes. host: and jonathan butcher, on those two points, and --

increasing state funding and the pell grant? guest: many of these problems were created either by the federal government or by state governments and their attempt to manufacture a different way for people to wind up in college and to get a four year degree, so where we what part is where the solutions are. i think as you have increased investments in washington entered the federal loan program, you have allowed schools to increase tuition amounts, so as you increase either the amount of pell grant or how much loan forgiveness, you are giving permission to schools to increase their tuition rates, which will not help the next 45 million people that want to go to college and try to take out loans to help pay for it. we are not are talking about the 45 million today -- we are not just talking about the 45 million today, we need to look about the next 40 million as well because when we shift this

burden onto taxpayers, they are the ones who will have to shoulder this. host: discotheque kathy from georgia -- delaware. good morning. caller: good morning. one of the concerns i have about the conversation is that the people who have the student debt have agreed and signed a document indicating that they know what they consequences of this alone is going to be, they know that -- this loan is going to be. as i understand it, only 40% of the students that go through seven years of college, four years or seven years, only 40% have a college degree. that is not a very good track record. also as i understand it, president biden said even as he was running for president that

he would forgive student loan and his last comment was the only thing he would agree to is that $10,000 amount toward their debt. so, there is all of these factors that i think have to be considered, not just when are we going to stop having a handout to the people of this country where they want something for free. it is tiresome. i do not get it. host: ok, kathy. actually, she talked about the president's position, the latest we know, that he would be amenable to $10,000 debt loan cancellation, how would that sit with you? guest: $10,000 is not enough. we are in the midst of a crisis we do not even know the full impact of the current situation.

we will not know that for a while. $10,000 is not enough. we had to cancel more than that. -- we have to cancel that. i have to add on this idea of folks absolutely are trying to pay back their loans but they cannot. the system has created -- has been created that created and an equitable system. it is not a choice. the vast majority of good jobs since the great recession have gone to people with some form of postsecondary education. if the only way to get that job is to get the post secondary education and the only way to get that is to take out loans, what choice will you have? these are not real choices. these are false choices. we put some the an entire generations in between a rock and a hard place. what do they do? how do they move forward? so, again, this is so much more than that. this is a system that does not

work, that should not have been allowed to get here. we should not be at $1.7 trillion and we should not have 45 million people struggling under the weight of this debt. we have an opportunity to fix it. this is the single most progressive action a president can take on his own without going through congress. that is the other beauty of it. we do not have to wait for congress to act. the president can cancel 50,000 on his own. we have to think about all solutions that are going to help everyone and the entire economy. host: that's here from economy in -- let's hear from gary in indianapolis. caller: thank you for taking my call. ms. harrington, i think you are on track and until you walk in someone else's shoes, i am 83 years old, i have a daughter and a granddaughter both doctors, their student loans are out of

sight and my daughter, my oldest daughter, she is a neurologist, helping young children two and up, what i'm getting at is she signed up for a four dennis -- a part of this program. -- a forgiveness program. her student loans are up around 300,000. the other thing, my wife when she was living, we both cosigned on the student loans for my daughter, my granddaughter. we were looking at an excess of $400,000. ms. harrington, you are correct about what you said. when you have to go to indiana university which has too many students per professor, she had to go out of state and pay for housing, food, everything because the family could not afford to put two doctors through.

my daughter is already practicing, doing well. my granddaughter is finishing up her residency in louisville, kentucky as a pediatrician. her student loans, they put them on hold. i get letters all the time about these loans because we have cosigned, so not only does it put a burden on our children that we want to be successful, which both of mine are, thank god, and healthy, but it puts a burden on senior citizens, a parent, and an uncle, whoever is helping their child and $10,000 is nothing. i mean, from what we are going through. and i am in the situation with them and i think with all of the waste of money that we spend in congress, we need to think about our future, i'll children, doctors, -- our children, doctors, dentists and about the

future and the money that they are charging on some of these is one of them and we have another one -- host: do you ever regret cosigning on those loans? caller: i tell you, i do not. i love both of my children dearly. and i didn't -- i do not. he was speaking earlier -- that would put the burden on someone with a fixed income. host: thank you for your comments. actually, if you would like to respond first. guest: i think absolutely. there is a wide array of people struggling with debt and again, you cannot just talk about and come in professions and what struggle means. it is so much deeper than that. and you also have to think about what struggle means. there are people who are managing to make payments, that does not mean it is a struggle

-- not a struggle every month. this is an unworkable system, it is unsustainable. and we can and should do better. i think it is as simple as that. we have a problem on our hands. and no matter what we do going forward, if we do nothing about this 1.7 trillion, and we have not done enough, we have not done nearly enough. we have to acknowledge our mistakes, acknowledge that this is a policy failure. and think of this as an investment in the federal government has done investments and giveaways as someone called it before. this one would go out in a more equitable weight and not just to one community over another. host: johnson, would you like to respond to the situation? guest: based on research, loans

of $100,000 or more make up a small percentage, i have seen numbers as though a 6% or 7% of those with such loans, so the median numbers that i have seen for those with loans each month is $220. i think the average case is much lower than these extreme cases. for those in the extreme cases, i think that paying it off now by shifting the burden to the taxpayers is not a sustainable solution. what do we do for the next million students that take out student loan debts? we are creating another system where we shifted and taxpayers now and we have to do so in the future without significant changes. i agree with actually, we do have a policy problem, but according to what people who are researching when the president was talking about forgiving student loan debt during the campaign, it could potentially be the most expensive executive order in history if he did it that way.

and that is certainly not a sustainable way to make a policy. host: one quick call from maryland. good morning. caller: thank you for letting me speak. i think when we discuss shifting the burden of risks from individual investors and their future to the growing population, we have to look at the quality of the investments. i would be interested to know what generally does in debt are attempting to attain a degree in, like which fields because quite frankly, i believe there is too much offered at the university level that does not lead to productivity for the country and we say it is valuable to have an educated citizenry, but how is it beneficial when the minority of degrees are in technical --

host: i will let you respond to that as we wrap up here, any final thoughts, jonathan butcher if you would like to start? guest: those who are getting graduate degrees now have a disproportionate share of the amount of money that they have borrowed that they owe, so you will shift the cost of paying for those loans for the wealthy onto those, 60% of americans, who do not have a bachelors degree, so you are setting up a system where those from low and middle income families who pay taxes are paying their graduate school loan debts for the wealthy. host: ashley harrington, your final thoughts? guest: a couple of things. $2000 is a lot of money for some folks. let's not say that he has -- only those at $800 or $1000 should be concerned about the cost of their monthly payments. confirm the cost of their monthly payment. $200 is a lot of money for a lot of folks and can make or break their monthly payments. especially if there is a medical

emergency or some other type of emergency. that is a big deal. we cannot discount it. also, what is more expensive than this is if we do nothing about the debt crisis. if we continue to let it spiral out of control, let an entire generation struggle with it, let our senior citizens struggle with it. if we continue to lead 45 million people struggle with it. we can do better. i think there are punny of conversations we have had about higher education reform and things like that, but that is separate from what we do to do something about the student debt crisis. that is separate from how we provide relief to 45 million people in our entire economy. we can and should do better, and remember the 45 million student loan borrowers are taxpayers and members of the society, and they want, just like everyone else, has the same dream, to build a life and have financial

security, to contribute to society and the economy in as many ways as possible, but if student that is stopping them from doing that, we have not -- then the federal government has not done our part. we have not been the people we should have, and we can and should do better. host: ashley harrington is federal advocacy director and senior counsel at the center for responsible lending. jonathan butcher is from the heritage foundation. thank you both for being with us this morning. a head here on "washington journal," we will be joined by paul gionfriddo, president and ceo of mental health america. he will join us to talk about a new report looking at those struggling with suicidal thoughts during the pandemic. ♪ host: book tv, on c-span two,

has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at 10 of 5 p.m. eastern, on afterwards, in her book insanity defense, former democratic congresswoman and national security insider looks at pressing national security issues. she is interviewed by the former homeland security secretary during the obama administration. sunday, live at noon eastern on in-depth. a conversation with max hastings on his more than two dozen books on wars and the 20 century, including his soon to be released operation pedestal. sunday at 8:00 10 -- 8:10 p.m. eastern, in his book, james tooley, vice chancellor and president at the university of buckingham in england talks about private schools and poor countries, elevating their educational standards, and setting an example other countries can learn from. watch book tv this weekend on c-span two.

>> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, former defense secretary donald rumsfeld's 2020 lecture on the war on terrorists from the citadel from charleston, south carolina. a sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, on american artifacts, a tour of the smithsonian institution capital. sunday night at 8:00 eastern, first lady sarah polk, mary lincoln, and lady bird johnson. exploring the american story, watch american history tv, this weekend on c-span3. >> c-span's landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama behind

significant supreme court decisions. for the next several weeks, watch key episodes from our series. sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, the 1919 case shanks v united states that allows the united states, particularly in times of war, to limit freedom of speech. the court upheld the conviction of charles shank, who dissed -- who distributed leaflets encouraging young men to avoid the draft during world war i. 10:00 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store with a collection of c-span products. your purchase will support our nonprofit organizations and use a high time to order the congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biting administration. go to c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined next by paul

gionfriddo who is the president and ceo of mental health america . with us this morning to talk about the effect of the pandemic on mental health, in particular on suicide and covid-19, a new report from mha. good morning and welcome to "washington journal." guest: good morning. host: tell us about your organization, and what you do, and how you are funded. guest: mental health america is the nation's longest standing mental health advocacy organization. we have been around since 1909. for most of those years, we were known as the national mental health association. we have affiliates around -- affiliates, around 200 of them, in nearly every state. we focus a lot on prevention, early identification, and intervention, integrated services, and recovery-oriented resources, and in essence went to hell for all. host: what prompted your study on suicide in the pandemic? guest: one of the frames we have

used to talk about mental health over the course of the time i've been at mha during the last seven years, mental health conditions have been the only chronic diseases in america that, by applying a danger to self, standard is a trigger to treatment we wait until stator to treat and often inappropriately only through incarceration. we have to act before stator. what we were doing during the pandemic was looking, in real time, at the way the pandemic was affecting people, using our online screening program, which is now accessed by about 15,000 people per day, to get an assessment on how quickly anxiety was increasing, depression was increasing, other mental health conditions were increasing, and how self-harm thinking was starting to affect the population. host: did that surprise you when you started to see the numbers increase? guest: it did and did not. at one level, we saw anxiety

numbers start to increase literally during the last week of february of last year. first, we were thinking maybe this is a blip, maybe do some noise because people are beginning to worried. then, we saw -- be worried. then we saw this increase in people seeking help. then psychosis numbers began to go up around the middle of may. so some of this we would have predicted and expected, because we were under such stress as a country and society, really as a world, over the course of the last 15 months. i think the extent of it may have taken the breath away from a lot of people. host: you said the psychosis numbers started to go up last may. give us an example. guest: we would typically have singing -- seen perhaps 100,000 people who have been screening at risk for psychosis per

year and last year that jumped to two to three times that number. we saw similar increases in the number of people with depression and anxiety. part of it, there were more people taking the screen, but the second half was not only where there more people taking mental health screens, on our website, and they are free and anonymous to take a, but the severity of what they were experiencing also went up owing the course of the year. host: the report is suicide and covid-19, communities in need across the u.s., and some of the findings from the report include that, over one third of those who took the depression screening, they had thoughts of suicide over a two week. . -- suicide over a two-week period. why had the highest individuals reporting suicidal ideation.

so that number, overall, 726,000, over a third of them, is that the highest number you have seen in doing this survey in this type of survey in the past? guest: yeah. the percentages of people reporting frequent thoughts of suicide or self-harm, and that is on more than half the days of the week or nearly every day of the week. this is on the specific depression screening tool. of percentages, we have seen, among health seekers, are fairly high. last year, as you point out, it was 38% of the overall population. if you look at 11-year-olds to 17-year-old, the number is upwards of 50%. if you look at 11-year-olds to 17-year-old who identify as lgbtq, the number is in excess of 60%. so what we have seen is greater

worries about this greater intensity of feelings about self-harm or suicide. they are more focused in younger people than older people. even in my age group, 65 plus, we are seeing 30% or so who take the depression screen who are suffering frequent thoughts of suicide or self-harm. what we did with this analysis for the very first time, because numbers were so big, we get about 15,000 per people per day now, and over the course of the year, but .5 million people took the screen, we were able to take 75% of them out who took the depression screen and adjusted for other things and could see, at a state and county level, what was going on with the population. there were surprises there. host: paul gionfriddo is our guest, the president and ceo of mental health america. we are talking about the pandemic and increasing thoughts and their study of suicide --

suicidal thoughts during the pandemic. we welcome your comments and calls at (202) 748-8000. for those of you dniester and an central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mount -- mountain and pacific, it is (202) 748-8001. during the pandemic, paul gionfriddo, folks are home, where they are more isolated, so they are driven to be online more. do you get any idea of what was really driving people to increase the number of screenings you are seeing at mha? guest: we were asking people, throughout the year, about that. nationwide, loneliness and isolation was the biggest factor driving this. last year, current events are also a big factor. increasing in loss and grief and financial distress were also factors. traditionally, relationship issues are also a factor that drives some of the numbers, but there were three or four traumas being placed on top of traumas

that we were beginning to notice and analyze. one of the things we really wanted to do in this project was to try to take these numbers and understand more about what parts of the country may be experiencing these traumas more deeply than others. it was not a surprise when you think about it, as you noted in number of states, populous areas where we got bigger numbers, but in terms of rates and percentages, it is the rural areas, where people are more isolated going into the pandemic , where perhaps there mental health got worse. host: i want to sort of square the numbers you are seeing on the results from your report with the report from the national center for health statistics on annual suicides. the suicides by years, 47 thousand, roughly, in 2017, 40 that -- 40,000 in 2018, and it

dropped last year. just about 45,000. your report says there are more people out there with suicidal thoughts. guest: think about it this way. we think we need to act before stage iv, and suicide is the ultimate stage iv event for somebody that has struggled with mental health conditions. usually for a decade or longer. suicidal ideation is a later stage for a lot of people who are experiencing moderate to severe depression. so what we are seeing is a suicide -- in the suicide data in 2020, and what will be fully fleshed out in suicide data 2021 and 2022, is really the tail end of what many people were experiencing five years ago and 10 years ago. it went untreated for an extended period of time. we, typically, have had to wait on these two-year time lapses to

get data at to act on it. one of the values about gathering data in real-time as you can anticipate what future trends will be. future trends do not look good around suicide, unless we intervene now. so if we see more policy attention at the federal, state, and local level, and we see more program interventions for the population as a whole, much like public health, i think we can continue to cut the suicide rates. i do not think it is acceptable that 45,000 to 55,000 people have been dying by suicide every year. it would be a horror show if that number went up even further. host: as you join us this morning, we talked about the effects of stimulus payments on not only economy but mental health, a study done by the university of michigan on data apps in the census bureau. one of their charts in that showing the questions they asked of people, the census bureau, people several or more feeling nervous, anxious, or on the

edge and anxiety in the last seven days. what they see as a sharp decline in those ceilings. does that surprise you? guest: not at all. one of the factors we saw beginning to increase last year was the financial distress factor. the census bureau has been great about getting to their poll survey. really a year ago, what we call the two questions about anxiety, the two questions about depression, so they could get a sense and take the pulse of the population around anxiety and depression. last year, close to half of the population were experiencing anxiety or depression. if you can relieve some of the factors contributing to that, and financial distress is one of the easiest to relieve, unlike grieving from the loss of a loved one, then you really can

reduce the anxiety people are feeling, and you can improve not only their individual mental health but overall mental health of the country. host: paul gionfriddo is with us up until 9:30 eastern this morning as the u.s. house comes in for a brief session at that time. let's get to calls. we first go to michael in deerfield, beach florida. -- deerfield beach, florida. caller: hello. real quickly, two to three things, but first, the fact that we have been promoting the fact that it is more dangerous for kids to be at home than at school was a false sense suicides are higher for kids. and that is just untrue. the kid suicide rate has been lower during covid, but you mentioned the rural areas suffering at a higher rate of suicide, and i wanted to mention quickly, i am a follow of the dual brain psychology. i know there's a lot of work going on in that's right now, which says sociology, the

definition, is a competition between self-interest and group interest. and our internal biology is projected externally into culture. so culture is biology. the rural areas are more self-interest focus, where cities where people lives in group, there is a more group focus. there is a bias toward self-harm, genocide, suicide as a result of our feeling, falsely, that competition is survival of the fittest. that is not what evolution says. cooperation says -- evolution says cooperation is what saves the day. the second question, quickly, is there a difference between western society's reactions to covid's suicidal ideation and other cultures because of this bias a part of our culture? evolution does not say the

competition leads to optim outcomes. -- octomom outcomes. -- optimum outcomes. guest: let's just say what i know and not speculate about things i'm not as certain about. what we see in mental health america are health seekers. in our screening program, about 10% of them come from outside of the united states. there have not been significant differences, to date, that we have been able to see in the needs of health seekers, both inside of the united states versus those outside of the united states. the truth is, and i think the caller put a finger on an important part, people in isolation do drive a lot of this. if you are in a more self-reliant society where people are expected to take care of themselves without the help of a community around them, you are at greater risk, based on

our data, of experiencing loneliness, isolation, and potentially having that become a trigger for mental health problems down the road. host: next is alyssa in virginia. hi, there -- hi there. caller: hi. i'm 31 years old and i first wanted to do the plug for the depression and bipolar support alliance, dbsalliance.org. they have a crisis button, they have a zip code finder to find support, to find groups near where you live. right now, because of covid, they are still mostly online, which is easier for a lot of people suffering with depression or bipolar disorder. but there is also the national alliance on mental illness, i believe, who holds support groups for other various mental

illnesses, such as schizophrenia . so i'm a member of the dbsa group here in northern virginia. please talk about community and support. these suicidal ideation's are a symptom of depression -- ideations are a symptom of depression. your driving and you think you can like, oh my gosh, what if i swerved into oncoming traffic? you're not thinking it consciously, but you are still scared you even thought it, you know? that is kind of like a suicidal ideation. so fulfilling false harm is something else entirely. i believe i have suffered with major depressive disorders since i was 12 years old. guest: first, let me say that we work closely with the bsa, particularly around -- dbsa,

particularly around nominee, all of whom support our screening. 13 groups put together a unified vision that we released late last year that really spelled out the importance of doing early identification and prevention, all the way up to services. so i do think it is important to remind people that this caller did, that there are organizations out there willing and able to help. some any of us have made our resources and programs available online. i think the key thing is, moving this whole conversation upstream, the key thing the caller said is feeling symptoms of serious depression from the age of 12, over and over again. this is what we hear from people, that mental illnesses begin or primarily attack people during young adulthood, which is being challenged every day by the true stories and

narratives of people who noticed the symptoms when they were five years old or 10 years old, or 15 years old. and too much time passed before anyone did anything to help, love, and support them. host: you had a piece on a real clear policy last month that has headlined. "kids are returning to school broken, here's what we need to do about it." paul gionfriddo, in terms of mental health and going back to school, what is the number one thing you suggest we do? guest: amy kennedy and eiko wrote that piece, and i think it is important for people to understand the discussion about whether or not kids should be back in school, physically or remotely, or in some hybrid, was the wrong discussion to have. kids are most deeply traumatized as a population then any other population group by this pandemic. as they return to school, what we need to do is three things, we need to provide significant mental health support for all

kids returning to school, whether they have been identified with mental health issue. we need to provide supports to teachers and staff who themselves have been traumatized during this last year, and finally, for those kids who really have a serious mental health condition, and before the pandemic, we were only providing special education services to support them. in one out of 30 cases, we really need to use some of these federal dollars to return kids to school, to make sure that we fully fund mental health services as part of that that children need. because the administration has made it possible for those dollars to be used that way. host: we will hear from ashley calling from massachusetts. go ahead. caller: hi. i just wanted to talk about my son a little bit. he has a disease, and he may be

autistic as well, and that was brought up during covid. he has struggled, immensely, with everything. he's nine, and it has been very difficult on me, as a single mother, as well. and he actually spent five weeks on a medical floor, waiting for an in-patient at a psychiatric facility at boston children's hospital. so it has been extremely tough, and there needs to be more -- for me, i feel like there needs to be more funding for mental health, as well as places for children to go that have a medical condition on top of mental health, because there is not enough resources for mental health and medical complexity

children. so i just wanted to bring that up. host: thank you, ashley, and good luck. guest: -- good luck. paul gionfriddo. guest: i could not agree more. i experienced the same thing with my son when he had schizophrenia when he was a child. he lived with schizophrenia until he died later this -- earlier this year at the age of 35. there was so much more we could and should have done for him and could and should have done for our children. children's mental health, across all spectrums, is a huge point of emphasis for mental health america. but i do want to put in a plug for congress and the administration here, i commend the bipartisanship of congress on the mental health issue during the past year. eight to 10 -- $8 billion to $10 billion, new dollars, were appropriated to mental health. this is more money then has gone

to it in decades. the administration, in their budget proposal, not just covid relief but on the regular budget proposal, also has excess of $1 billion for additional services. as i mentioned, $130 billion in stimulus money that is going to school can be used to provide mental health supports. imagine if they just took a 10% of those dollars and put them into mental health for students. we will be -- would be able to find every individualized education program each child needed in school, going forward. so there is some sun on the horizon, and i hope there will be a lot more, because we have billions of dollars to go in this. i'm not going to sugarcoat that and say it will be less than that or people can do it for less than that. mental health has been neglected for a long time, in our kids and adults. host: next up is jerry in new jersey. go ahead. caller: hi.

good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have a great-grandson i drop off at school, and his best friend is a black boy, and his a white boy. every morning, they hug, jump, and they are very excited to see each other. after reading the chris cole race theory and putting it into kindergarten, my great-grandson has no idea about skin color, but this will teach him that he is inferior. host: a little off-topic, but do you have anything to say about that? guest: my kids have all struggled in school, and they have experienced racism, they experienced racism over the course of their lives. i think it is important we recognize this and that we learn from our children. who don't see it the way that adults do. i think our society will be better off. host: i wanted to ask you about

the issue of mental health, coming up in the world of sports this week. the column from jason gaye of the wall street journal on naomi osaka, who left the french open because of mental health concerns that she had, and he writes that osaka was 23 and has spectacular and on the court success appears to have it all, but depression and anxiety does not work like that. it is not linear. free passes are not handed out to higher achievers. michael phelps, the most decorated olympian of all time, fell into a set of depressive episodes. we are amid a pandemic where ordinary -- if you are doing ok, it is tempting to think everyone else should be doing ok. that is not the way it goes. a little empathy can go a long way. as you saw this with naomi osaka, paul gionfriddo, what did

you think? guest: yeah, if you don't have cancer, it is tempting to think no one else has it either and it should be ok, but when i saw what happened with naomi osaka, i am so proud of her. i think it is critical important that she, like others, kevin love in the nba, some in the national football league, susie hamilton, a great runner, a wnba player, all of these people have been athletes, celebrities who have spoken out and talked about mental health in -- and the importance of taking care of one's mental health. people have said if naomi osaka had a sprained ankle, people would have said take the time off until you are healthy. when it is the brain that is sprained, people tend to say suck it up and do better than that. mental health concerns and issues, depression, anxiety, psychosis, they know no boundaries. race, age, gender, anything. financial success.

let's learn from this and understand that this can normalize conversations about the mental health struggles so many of us are experiencing. host: paul gionfriddo's president and ceo of mental health america. sorry about the loss of your son earlier this year, and thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you. host: up next here on c-span, we take you like to the house floor. a brief session and then we are back with more "washington journal". -- "washington journal."