north carolina. lyman stone discusses his latest piece. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." new jobs numbers came out this week and jobs creation -- the american economy. millions are still jobless at the same time as businesses are complaining about labor shortages. the unemployment rate is dropping but the economy is still down 7.5 million jobs since the pandemic began. there are mixed messages coming from politicians about what to do to get the economy back on track. that is our question for you this morning -- do you think

there should be more or less government intervention to boost jobs in america? if you think there should be more intervention by the federal government, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. if you think there should be less intervention by the government to boost jobs, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, twitter, and on facebook. once again, the topic from this morning comes from the new jobs report that came out yesterday. we had an unemployment rate of 5.8% and the american economy added 559,000 jobs. that was below the forecasts that most economists had for the

american government. i want to read a couple paragraphs from politico about the issue. the u.s. economy added 559,000 jobs in may, well below expectations, stirring up questions about what is holding back a stronger recovery from the covid-19 epidemic. the figures marked a bounce back from disappointing april numbers but will not erase concerns about whether generous federal benefits are keeping americans from rejoining the labor force or whether the biden a ministration needs to do more to light a fire under the economy. the number is likely to provide partisan fodder for everyone. it was far from the blockbuster game everyone expected but was not as awful as april, where fewer as half as many jobs were created. president biden came out to talk about the may jobs report and he tied the increase in jobs to the efforts of his administration.

here is a portion of what he said. [video clip] pres. biden: the unemployment rate is below 6% for the first time since the pandemic hit. the first time in 14 months we saw the largest decline in the number of long-term unemployed, more than an entire decade. long-term unemployment dropped by the second largest amount ever recorded. not only that, but the signs of further progress are already here. this report is based on a weekly -- a week in early may. that is how they determine the job growth or loss. we had growth. that week in may, we only had 35% of working aged results who were fully vaccinated. they were all still masks. since then, 21 million more adults have gotten vaccinated, making it easier for them to return to return to work safely.

this is historic progress. progress that is pulling our economy out of the worst crisis in 100 years. host: let's get some more details about the jobs report from a story. according to reuters, payrolls increased by 559,000 jobs last month after rising 278,000 in april. that left employment about 7.6 million jobs below its peak in february 2020. economists polled had forecasted 650,000 jobs in may. about 9.3 million people were classified as unemployed last month. there are a record 8.1 million unfilled jobs. with at least half of the american population fully vaccinated, authorities across the country have lifted restrictions on businesses that nearly paralyzed the economy early in the pandemic. the reopening economy is

straining the supply chain. although women took 56.2% of the jobs created last month, they constitute a large share of the millions of workers still at home since most school districts have not moved to full-time in person learning. nearly 1.8 million women have left the labor force since february 2020. once again, we want to know if you think there should be more government intervention to get the economy back going should there be less government intervention? let's start by talking to joe, who is calling from georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i love c-span. i have been calling c-span for 30 years. we need less government intervention. on foxbusiness news, they said we need quit paying people for not working. it is terrible. if you want to help the economy, stop paying people not to work.

that is terrible. host: are you suggesting we get rid of unemployment completely, or are you just saying get rid of the pandemic unemployment boost that the government gave over the last year? caller: the pandemic unemployment boost. that needs to go. i will tell you what, down here in georgia, we have good business but they can't get the workers. the reason they don't is because they are paying them not to work. our governor has stopped that. that should be good. we are fired up down here in georgia. we are big trump supporters. we are fired up. host: do you think the businesses looking for more employees might need to raise their wages to see to get more people to show up? caller: the problem you have with that -- i was small businessman of the year in 1975 in georgia -- they have really small margins, they cannot afford to pay more.

we have gone through the pandemic, a lot of them are hurting. we to help small businesses. we do not need more tax and spending increases, we need tax cuts. host: let's go to gary, who is calling from austin, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say biden's approach to the new jobs, i think he is on the right track and i support him completely. host: i don't know if you heard our first caller, but our first caller said there are people who do not want to take jobs because of the government benefits they are getting. do you agree with that? caller: no, i don't. in some cases, they might. for the most part, i don't know anyone -- if you are living off that for the rest of your life,

it has helped in the drought we have been through. it is a band-aid to help us get through. i don't think people are looking to live on that for the rest of their life. host: how do we solve the problem of having millions of jobs unfilled and millions of people not working? caller: we pay people a reasonable wage. get the minimum wage raised so people can live on the money they earn from work. it is a shame you can work a full-time job and not pay your rent. host: let's go to joe who is calling from dayton, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning, sir, how are you doing? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i agree with joe down in georgia. he is 100% correct. the biden administration does not know what they are doing. biden has spoken nothing but

mistruths that he says he has created all these new jobs. he has created not one single new job. they are failing old jobs -- they are filling old jobs. the stimulus checks went to a lot of pork. it did not go to what the money was intended for. i traveled by car from ohio to florida. joe in georgia is correct -- you cannot hire people. you want to talk about more stimulus, prices for gas and meat and wood and building houses has gone through the roof. it is terrible what is going on. host: you said you have seen that businesses cannot hire people. why do you think businesses cannot hire people? is it the wages? government assistance?

why are there so many jobs unfilled and somebody people not working? caller: i will tell you why. traveling by car, you go to restaurants like cracker barrel and others. they are offering folks $15 per hour at cracker barrel or other restaurants and sign-on bonuses. host: you say people are still not trying? caller: no, because they are getting free money from the government. this is taxpayers' money that they are getting back. it is ridiculous because, now, you are paying over $3 per gallon for gas. my wife got steaks the other day and meat prices are going through the roof. it is a catch 22, isn't it? what are you getting? you are getting nothing. host: let's go to steve who is

calling from florida. steve, good morning. caller: good morning. i think there should be more government intervention, but not in the way it is happening now. i agree and disagree with some of the callers before. i do not think we need to keep printing money. i think it is laughable to say that people are not opting to work because they are getting money, anyway. those are one-time payments. i think people know the difference between a one time payment and a paycheck. i think that the government needs to enforce price fixing laws and wage fixing laws. for instance, here in my part of florida, if you want to rent an apartment here, a studio

apartment or a one bedroom apartment, it starts between $1500 and $1600 a month. the wages here are notoriously low. if you are a general laborer, you will not make more than $9 per hour, which is what people made when milk was $1.10 a gallon. the reason why wages here are low is there is no free market. there are business groups, for instance, if you and i have a business in the same industry, we get together and say, hey, let's not pay more than this amount of money for a certain position that requires a certain amount of skill -- that is wage fixing. the property management industry that are building all these apartments, they are fixing the

prices and saying, hey, let's not charge any more than this much, let's not charge any less than this much for rent. right now, there is too much price-fixing going on and too much wage fixing going on. host: you are saying the reason why there are so many people not working is because the wages are not high enough -- am i understanding you correctly? caller: yes, that, and these employers do not offer full-time, they do not offer benefits. if you are working two jobs and each one of those jobs you are working 20 hours a week and making $9 per hour, and the lowest rent for which you can rent an apartment here is $1500 a month, or the cheapest house you can buy is $300,000, what is the sense of working? you are losing money by working.

you have to spend gas to get to work, and you have to buy presentable clothes and shoes and spend the money to get to work. right now, the wages are so low, it is not a matter of if you can make a living, it is a matter if you are spending more money getting to and from work then you are -- than the wages are you are getting paid. host: let's go to sid who is calling from jackson springs, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe in less government intervention in all of our lives. our government has gotten completely out of hand. we are leaving a tremendous debt for our children and our grandchildren. by incurring such expensive --

trillions and trillions of dollars of debt, we are putting our country in a very precarious position, politically, economically, worldwide -- not just here. host: do you think the government made a mistake during the pandemic and earlier this year when it stepped in to help people make it through the worst parts of the coronavirus pandemic? caller: no, i do not believe they did, but they should have lowered the amount. host: you think they get people to much money? caller: if they sent out $1200 per person for people making less than $75,000, people are getting $100,000 a year as a

couple do not need that money. what we need to do is get ourselves out of debt, and we need to get government out of private industry. sure, there needs to be regulation so the consumer is not taken advantage of, but we also need private industry competing on a fair basis. the gentleman who just called before, he had some good points, but i do not know where he is living, but i have a friend, she bought a lovely two-bedroom condo in florida. it was like $160,000. if he is paying $300,000 -- she is in a good area. the more we increase -- you do need a decent wage to live, there is no doubt about that --

i believe the minimum hourly should be at least $12 for adults working full-time. we need a different rate for people who are in college, or high school who are working. they are doing it to get experience and to make extra money. to save for college. we have just gone haywire with this spending. another thing i would like to say quickly, we need to bring back our energy to this country, we need to open up the keystone pipeline. i am an independent. i believe that we do need social services for people in need, but we also need to open up the keystone pipeline, get those people back to work, get our energy up, because not only are we putting our country in an

insecure position as far as economically with all the debt we are incurring, we are also putting it in a terrible position with the energy situation. host: let's go to tom, who is calling from colonial heights, virginia. tom, good morning. caller: good morning. do not cut me off, please. my comment is for joe in georgia. entrepreneur of the year, what i guarantee you he probably paid his people minimum wage. you tell me -- how can someone live on $7.25 an hour? the lady who just called, normally, republicans never want government to intervene. but i guarantee you, all of those stimulus checks they

received, nobody sent them back. why not? you don't need the money? don't take the checks. anyway, i think there is always a role for government. if you work the numbers out, even at $15 per hour, that is only $600 per week pretax. how can you raise a family on $600 per week before taxes? thank you. host: president biden spoke on friday about the american rescue plan and how it has helped the economy. here is a portion of what he said on friday. [video clip] pres. biden: no other major economy in the world is growing as fast as ours. no other economy is growing jobs as quickly as ours. none of this success is an accident. it is not luck. it is due in no small part of

the cooperation of the american people in my effort to get covid under control, wearing masks and getting vaccinated. it is in no small part of the bold action we took bypassing the american rescue plan. enough vaccine supply for every american. more vaccinators, people to put shots in arms and more vaccination sites. now, 52% -- 52% -- of american adults are now fully vaccinated. 75% of our seniors are fully vaccinated. the american rescue plan delivered economic benefits directly to the american people. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about whether there needs to be more or less government intervention to boost jobs. here is one post from facebook that says, jobs would have been there all along if government

convince people that need to quit working to make things better. a text says, the government should do everything possible to assist people or families. i am confused by business owners. didn't they claim in 2020 there were not enough skilled workers? now they claim they are not enough workers. to they want workers or not? another text says, a labor market where labor has control. businesses big or small have been manipulating workers for years. i guess payback, like they say, is not as much fun when it is done to you. a tweet says, the trump tax cuts were supposed to add jobs. they did not. unemployment is not boost jobs, but it keeps the economy going. companies need to do something. take a risk and hire people to do things -- simple. another tweet says, now that we are finally reopened, the

government did all it could for employers to step up and pay a livable wage to people trying to get by. we want to know whether you think there should be more or less government intervention to boost jobs in the american economy. let's go to robert, who is calling from st. petersburg, florida. good morning. caller: good morning to you. yes, good morning. i think there should be less intervention. the reason i do, i do not think government has any idea what they are doing. i will give you a perfect example. my wife and i are retired. we are both past the age of 75. we owned two condos in st. petersburg. between the two of us, we have accounts that are approaching $2

million. between the two of us, we get five monthly checks. we both get a deferred pension check from our employer of 35 years. we both get social security. after my wife retired, she went to work in an administrative office of a local school system. the government sent us, within the last year, stimulus checks. i don't know how much. $1200 per person. they have no idea what they are doing. host: what did you do with the stimulus checks that were sent to you by the government? caller: guess what i did with them -- [laughs] -- i sent them to our broker last month. i just got this statement yesterday for the five accounts. i don't have it sitting in front

of me, but we gained -- we gained -- something like $15,000 on these brokerage accounts. by the way, we go out for brunch about four or five mornings of the week. we enjoy a whiskey sour and we go on one cruise a year. we have grandkids in college. i am telling you, the government has no idea. host: do you think the trump government, and now the biden government, did the wrong things by sending out stimulus checks to keep people going during the pandemic? caller: i don't think it is the biden government or the trump government, i think government just missed manages a lot. i opened my mailbox the other day, there are all kinds of

advertising gimmicks stuffed into it from the u.s. post office. it is like the stuff that comes in the sunday paper as inserts. i don't think you have any idea what they are doing. whether it is stimulus checks, the post office or the fbi. host: let's go to laura who is calling from hampton, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i wish the government would intervene more -- it did not intervene enough. people are talking but they do not realize we are in a pandemic. me, personally, i am still working. we had to literally change our lives. i started working from home. infrastructure, there was no internet, the food chain was interrupted.

we are talking about going to work? first of all, when i talked to my students, i went back face-to-face, they are saying, the jobs are only giving us 20 hours a week. when we start talking, go in your community and see what is actually happening. they did not do enough. we were in a pandemic. it was not just the u.s. it was international. everything was affected. they did not do enough. host: let's go to kansas. lindy, good morning. caller: good morning. dank you for taking my call. my one question is -- when did it become the government's job

to create jobs for the private industry? that is not for the government to do. more importantly, when did it become their job to decide they are only going to accept union jobs for doing road construction, government contracts, like obama, when he was going to have his great plan, get all these road jobs. he was only going to accept union bids. why is it the government's job to see how little work they can get done for the most amount of money spent? it should be the opposite. they should be taking care of the taxpayer dollar. they should be seeing how much work they can get done for the least amount of money spent. that is the government's job -- to look out for the taxpayers, not to look out for unions. host: do you think the

government made a mistake by putting out the stimulus checks at the beginning and at the end of the pandemic? caller: i think the government made a mistake in shutting down all these businesses -- that is where they made their mistake. if you go to the red states, they were shut down for a short period of time, but then they reopened. some people need a stimulus package, but we cannot afford it. they should not have shut down the government to start with -- the government should not have shut down businesses to start with. host: let's go to ronald, who is calling from boston, massachusetts. good morning. ronald, are you there? let's go to tanner, who is

calling from somerville, ohio. good morning. caller: yes, sir. i think government should do less intervention, kind of like what the previous caller was saying. for the most part, they show their incompetence. it is the private sector's responsibility to create jobs. president biden's first day, he cut 10,000 jobs from the keystone pipeline. i never lost a single hour of work and got every single one of them checks. i sent them back to the united states treasury. i think everyone else should have done the same. there is something about that i do not understand. i feel like that was too much

work for the government to figure out who did and who did not so they said, we will give it to everybody. i feel like that is wasteful. that is all i have to say. host: let's go to mike, who is calling from philadelphia, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. it is a pleasure. i agree with one of the callers all the while back who said she felt the government did not do quite enough. i think we are seeing the aftermath of that now. it is a little disheartening to hear some of these callers speak at length, basically parrot talking points from the u.s. chamber of commerce and other lobbying groups that it worked to dismantle the government idea and the private sector can create things. we are looking at the aftermath

of their failure and inability to do so. do you know that i mean? these people have not demonstrated -- the so-called private sector has not demonstrated the ability to do anything other than try to ring out efficiency from human workers and devalue them. we have sacrificed 650,000 americans at the altar of capitalism. the government can do great things but we have to believe in it and work together. thank you. host: let's look at some tweets from members of congress on the current job numbers. let's start with kevin mccarthy, who tweeted, as we emerge from the virus, our economy should be blooming, but today's lackluster job reports show president biden's policies have stalled our recovery. washington needs to stop paying people not to work. here is another tweet from --

another jobs report that falls short, continues to show -- biden policies are dis-incentivizing work and harming our recovery. instead of holding back our economy, we need to get government out of the way and incentivize a return to and one from hakeem jeffries, who says more than 500,000 jobs created last month. leadership matters. we want to know from you whether there should be more or less government intervention to boost jobs in america. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to jerry, who is calling from indiana. jerry, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the government and joe

biden is doing the best they can. people who got the checks and did not need it, they had a choice -- they could send it back or use it for what it was sent for, to help stimulate the economy. in my case, i took advantage of it and did something for my great-grandson. we put down a new floor in his room and the result of that was he learned how to put down a floor. neither one of us had ever done it before. that was a good thing to do with that money. not only did it teach my grandson a lesson, it help stimulate the economy. the last check, i got a lot of work done on my granddaughter's car. if you don't need the money, you can find something good to do with it.

you can donate it to charity. it was meant to stimulate the economy, helping other people, someone in your family. so many of these opinions are without any facts. i think the government is doing the best they can. host: let's go to bill, who is calling from jefferson township, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i think the government should get off their backs -- the government does not give you anything it does not first take from you. people have to work through may to pay the government. we have township governments, county governments, state governments, federal governments, even the unions

have a government. they take the cream right off the top. before you get your hands on your paycheck, the income tax right off the top. you never see the gross, all you see is the net. when i spend a $1, do you think the governments gives a dollar for every dollar they spend. they think the government is their savior. that they can take care of them from cradle-to-grave. this is socialism. host: let's go to marianne, who is calling from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for being there. a very good question today. i would have to say that i am leaning toward less intervention simply because, in the very beginning, i could understand

the extended unemployment and the extra bonus amounts. but now we have morning events where you have 80,000 people showing up in the grandstands and all they have to do is show they have been vaccinated or get a covid test. i don't know why people are allowed to stay out of work, still claiming they are nervous about getting sick or something to that effect. i was laid off several times in my lifetime. i never got extra bonuses. i had to pull out whatever was in my savings account. someone on yesterday said biden created more jobs than in history. he did not create those jobs. most of those jobs were jobs that were already there, and employers are relating to open up again and get the people in.

if we keep paying people to stay home, they will not work. there was a restaurant tour here and he was told people have to apply for different jobs to stay on that unemployment rate they apply, but when he calls them in for interview, they do not show up. they stay on unemployment for simply "applying." the whole extending unemployment and adding bonuses is wrong. host: let's go to oscar, who is calling from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i feel like i am on another planet. am i the only person in this country that understands that the point of those checks is so the american people can go out to walmart and the companies that make money -- host: are you still there?

let's go to ernestine who is calling from south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is they are talkingag unemployment, they are not going back to work because they are not paying enough for them to take care of their responsibilities, financially. of course they are not going to go to work for $10 per hour and they have responsibilities to get back and forth and take care of their children. if they up the minimum wages, maybe they will be able to go back to work and take care of their children and their responsibilities. you are not going to work if you do not make enough money.

they are holding back biden friend to give more money to minimum wages. they should pay more money so young people can get out and work. host: let's get a little more information about the job status in the u.s. from a story on reuters. according to reuters, the chamber of commerce survey on friday showed 61% of unemployed people were in no hurry to return to work. 3 in 10 said they did not expect to resume working to share. nearly half of those indicated they never planned to work again. average hourly earnings rose a solid 0.5% after shooting up 0.7 % in april. wages in the leisure and

hospitality sector jumped 1.3%, the third straight month of gains above 1%. postings on line, a national job board for the restaurant hospitality industry, are showing restaurants offering as much as $30 per hour for a line cook. those are statistics from a reuters story on the jobs numbers the came out on friday. i want to also bring to you a statement from the ways and means committee representative kevin brady, the ranking republican on the ways and means committee. this is what he said. even with domed down -- even with dumbed down expectations, here is another report falling short of expectations. long-term unemployment is higher than when the pandemic started, and labor force participation

mirrors the stack 1970's. it is time for president biden to abandon his attack on american jobs, his tax increases, is anti-growth regulations and his obsession with more emergency spending and endless government checks. let's call from bob -- let's talk to bob, who is calling from philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. greetings from the city of pennsylvania. around 7:30, there was a gentle man who called from philadelphia and said there should be more intervention. that person is either blind, stupid or woke, because if you come to this city, you will see it is a mirror image of what government money does. it has wrecked the city.

it has this incentivized it. 20% of every dollar -- more than 20% of every dollar -- that goes into the city coffers goes into pension plans. this city, all of the big companies have left. the only ones that stay are in enterprise zones. to think if you give people money -- free money -- it will incentivized them to do something is just utterly foolish. people need to be careful because there are so many people flooding across our border to take their jobs -- it is kind of like musical chairs. when the music stops, there will not be a chair for those people, because they will be fat and happy. they might be fat, but after the incentive stop, they will not be so happy. people from guatemala, mexico or -- will have taken their

jobs. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. i would like to have more government intervention. one of the biggest things -- i have two children that are disabled. i have problems getting childcare providers into my home so i can work. the rate that medicaid pays is the same as it was 13 years ago. we have not raised that. i have two parents in a nursing home that have lost 20% of their staff. the new york times had an article about this last night. i am sure i am not the only

woman who could not get back to work. i had to quit because of a lack of help. i am hoping that the plan will put more money into a package to help for people taking care of disabled children or elderly parents it has been difficult for me. also, bring driver's ed back into high schools. i can't imagine how a lot of single mothers can afford to get kids to pay for private driving lessons. suburban parents who have two incomes. bring drivers ed back into high schools so kids can serve burgers at mcdonald's. host: the caller was talking about not being able to find

health care workers or assistance. let's look at the may jobs gains or losses by sector from the report yesterday. the leisure and hospitality industry has the biggest jump at 292,000 jobs gained. professional and business services had 35,000 jobs gained. health care, we can see 46,000 jobs were added to the health care industry. manufacturing added 23,000 jobs. the only sector to lose jobs in the may jobs report was the retail sector, which was down 6000 jobs. once again, do we think there should be more or less government intervention to boost those numbers. let's talk to montgomery, who is calling from jamaica, new york. montgomery, are you there? let's go to rick, who is calling

from temple hills, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to say, we could use some more intervention. for the republicans out there that do not want this country to turn into a socialist state, program, they cannot seem to fathom, we are already in a socialist program because there are a lot of red states out there that you don't have enough people to support their economy as it is the take from the blue states that have a tax base and provide them with the existence they have to this day. for them to talk about socialism through democratic processes -- through the democratic party, i am sorry -- it is already there. it is part of the fabric of the country, to provide for those

who could not completely take care of themselves. without the blue states they want to despise on a regular basis, they would not even exist. thank you very much. host: let's talk to vanessa, who is calling from mississippi. good morning. caller: good morning. i have some more intervention because i have children that have to go to daycare. trying to get on these small jobs, low income, not enough weekly wages. it is impossible to pay childcare, it is impossible to put food on the table. if these children had not gotten these stimulus checks, they would've lost their home. they are still paying minimum wage. you cannot make it off minimum wages.

it has been time for us to get more money that we can provide. we are not just throwing this money away. my husband was forced to go on retirement to take care of me because of the pandemic. the insurance went so high, medicaid does not pay for half of the medicine. we need more intervention for people who are retired and have to pay a high price for medicine because they cannot afford it. host: let's go to huntsville, alabama. good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead, greg. caller: we need less. i will give you an example. i am in huntsville, alabama. we are paying $16 an hour or better for mcdonald's, they cannot open their dining rooms. nobody is working. in texas -- i will give you a

quick example of how this affects us. in texas, the freeze they had, there is a plant that makes pvc. the freeze took place, it damaged the plants, the plant shut down for three weeks, most of the people got unemployment. biden kicked in $250 more, the plant opened up, people were still collecting unemployment. they had a job available, they did not have to take it under the current guidelines. there is a pvc shortage because people will not go back to work. there is a job available. that one is an easy one to figure out. when you try to do things with a broad stroke and handout money, you cannot take a capitalistic society and put a government fix in it. it did not work with health care, it has not worked with social security.

it is a program that absolutely kill desperate now, we are sitting around in construction, we are out of materials. we do not have it and we do not have manpower. in the imminent brilliance of biden, he wants to do the infrastructure program and create more construction, more demand on materials in the middle of an already shortage and all of those things. we can even keep up with the housing market to keep people in homes. host: let's go to john, who is calling from cleveland, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i am 86 years old. some areas, you have to give more. some areas, less. god does not believe in trickle-down economics.

we do not need to build a house if the roof is leaking because you can fix it. you cannot build a house without a foundation. it is sad. reagan said government is the enemy. who are they fighting with? i am glad i am not in a nursing home, sedated. both sides have been watching c-span since 1980. i know what i am doing. when you are limping after an accident, have a cane to walk with. it is not economics or finance, neither republicans or democrats have a backbone. founding fathers were not perfect, 25 years with no

budget. host: let's go to paul, who is calling from tampa, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the show and your attempt to be objective and give all sides to this. when we look at the basic human nature of us -- think of yourself having everything brought to you. do you need to get off the couch and go to the kitchen anymore when mom brought you food, a nice beverage? somebody else changed the channel for you. there is a sentiment out there that says why work when i can get this just being here? that is my concern. in the founding of this country, young men came to the promise of land and soldiers were given acres after fighting the revolutionary war. there was an incentive to create

something for thyself. i think we are killing that nature within us. everything is brought to us. it is nice for a subsidy, there is an end to it. get up, go to work, find out what we want to do and do that with education. this is a fine time for retooling. i cannot wait until the concerts open up again, recordings, tv shows. there is a desire in us to be creative and we lose that by incentivizing that way. we have lost our american spirit. host: let's go to david, who is calling from milwaukee, wisconsin. good morning. caller: hi, how are you? host: just fine. go ahead, david. caller: when you try to legislate in the economy, it does not do us any good.

it is trying to take a balloon and try to push it together. it eventually leaks out. you can never legislate in the economy. i have never seen it work. host: let's go to cheryl, who is calling from south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i think we should have some sort of additional intervention because we need oversight. we have people who are working, legislators who are not getting things done. a lot of people need some of these incentives because we do have a pandemic, but how many hundreds of thousands of people who have died. people need to forget about that part about what happened to our country, too. people are afraid, especially if you had someone who did die

because of covid, a little more sympathetic about why people were not getting out right away. we also have vaccines. a lot of people in those red states are not even bothering to get them. they want to be part of the economy that is booming. and not wear a face mask, and think they will be the ones will be ok. host: let's go to tim, who is calling from minnesota. good morning. caller: hi, how are you? i have to think now that things are slowing down with a pandemic, it is ok for less government assistance. i hear all these people calling in and talking about this lazy

mantra. with the assistance we were getting from the government, providing for the general welfare. we dodged a bullet with this pandemic with respect to all the people who lost loved ones. this was not the worst pandemic we have been through. we could have lost 50 million. we were overdue for a pandemic if i understand what doctors are telling me. host: let's go to david, who is calling from park hills, missouri. good morning. caller: thank you for your show. i think childcare health assistance and deductible amount is needed. we need to put some more teeth into the job core program we used to have and to gear up for new technology, solar and wind.

as far as the chamber of commerce goes, i think they are a lobbying agency for big business and they will cry for them and not the people. thank you very much. host: let's talk to shirley, who is calling from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for your program. i am so glad i am able to get through. i think the government should intervene more because -- yes. good morning. good morning. i think there should be more intervention. i am retired. i do not make very much money with my retirement. if i made $75,000 a year in retirement, me and my husband, i would not want a stimulus checked or any kind of government help, but i have earned what we get -- so has my husband. i see the suffering in my

neighborhood of young adults trying to raise their children -- men and women. these people calling in and saying they did not need the money. if they did not need the money, why did they not find some people who needed the money, need clothing, need rent. i am 71 years old. it is the haves and the have nots and the have nots usually give more than the ones who have. there needs to be more love in the community. i praise joe biden for what he is doing. these people calling in has more than they need. i have more than what god says i need and i am trying to give it away. thank you for your program and you have a blessed day. host: coming up next, we will continue to talk about the job situation in america and we will dig a little deeper into last month's jobs report with wall

street journal reporter eric morath. national review contributor lyman stone will discuss. stick with us, we will be right back. ♪ >> my objectives were to understand the process. i was a reporter, so i reported the process. i came to realize that i like two things -- i like finding out what the story is, and i like figuring out how to share it. >> peter on his memoir "an especially good view: watching history happen." he describes reporting on the vietnam war and publishing books

by barack obama, donald trump and vladimir putin. peter osnos on c-span q and a. >> american history tv on c-span3 -- exploring the people and events that tell the american story. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, donald rumsfeld's lecture on the war on terrorism from the saturday in north carolina -- citadel in north carolina. a tour of the smithsonian institution capital. sarah polk, mary lincoln, and lady bird johnson. exploring the american story. watch american history tv this week on c-span3.

>> washington journal continues. host: w are back with w wall street -- we are back with wall street journal reporter eric morath who will help us make sense of this new jobs report. let's jump into it. there were 559,000 new jobs added in may. what did that number tell us about job creation in the united states? guest: we are recovering from the coronavirus downturn, but the strength of the labor market recovery is not quite there to the degree some might expect. we are seeing overall the economy is growing at a very fast rate. consumer spending is growing. we are seeing other signs of a strong economy and the labor market appears to be lacking behind that pace.

they were expecting one million jobs to be added per month and we are not at even half that pace in the recent months. host: i heard a couple callers mentioned so i will ask this question -- the economists making these predictions -- who are they and why should we be lessening? guest: the wall street journal tries to reach out to a wide variety of the economists. a lot of them work for banks -- big wall street banks, regional banks in different parts of the country. we also talked to academic economists and spread the range of air from well-known universities -- university of michigan, university of chicago -- to smaller schools around the country. we also talk to economists who work for businesses, trade associations who have the

industry perspective and we try to reach out to folks who had worked in the trump and bush edmund ration -- bush and trump administration -- worked in the trump and bush administrations. host: we had a couple callers in our first segment who said the jobs that were added or jobs that already existed. they are not new jobs being created. are they correct? guest: we saw that i strongest growth -- the strongest growth in hospitality, tourism. that was the area hit hardest last year. in some respects they are correct that we are still triangle to get back to where we were. there are 7 million fewer jobs today than there were in early

2020. we are still in replacement mode. in general a lot of places are still trying to get back to where we were. host: is that why we are seeing that big jump in leisure and hospitality, companies trying to hire people back into jobs they laid off during the pandemic? guest: half the jobs last month! those businesses were in many cases told to close. it was not just a recession -- maybe things are not going as well. it was " you cannot operate your bar in chicago or your restaurant in manhattan." those workers were sent home, many put on the unemployment benefits. now we are seeing every opening across the country, and

businesses trying to get restarted and there is strong demand. people are eager to go out to eat again and travel in some instances. demand is coming back, but we are still not all the way there. host: let me remind our callers, you can join in on this conversation. we will open special lines. if you are currently unemployed, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. tell us about your job search. if you are employed, are you getting a raise? what is your job situation like? for people who are employed, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. employers, tell us about your job search. are you not able to find enough people? employers, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8002.

you can always text at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading twitter and facebook. eric, we talked about this earlier -- how many jobs are way down because of the pandemic? guest: still about 7 million jobs down. host: do we expect all those jobs to return or are they gone completely? guest: in the short term, some of those jobs are gone because we have a circumstance where it is not just a matter of unlocking the door and having people come back in. the businesses have closed, including service and restaurant businesses. in the long run, economists expect the economy to recover all that employment and continue to add employment.

we are still a growing nation with a growing population. we have a strong economy at the moment. it is about the pace of the recovery may be being slower than people had anticipated this summer. host: when do you think folger recovery will happen for the u.s. economy -- full job recovery will happen for the u.s. economy? guest: next year. it depends on how fast people are willing to get back into the labor force and if demand for employment can remain as high as it is now. host: how much does that have to do with the availability of childcare and schools reopening only in the fall? -- reopening fully in the fall? guest: there is a challenge they certainly with childcare and family care issues more broadly.

a lot of schools never fully reopened. they are doing hybrid school jewels -- schedules. for some kids, that was worse than when schools were closed! there were a lot of folks looking toward september saying that is the expectation that childcare centers will be fully reopened. host: we have a question from one of our social media followers -- they want to know if you know how many small businesses were lost and never going to return because of the pandemic? guest: we do not know the exact number of small businesses that were lost. there is always strong turnover there. certainly, a lot as main street businesses relied on foot traffic. we saw job losses there.

there has been strong growth in people starting businesses during the pandemic, either becoming employed for themselves, or looking to start a new business. economists say the stimulus payments gave people a little cash when they lost their previous job and they went out on their own. we have definitely gained some small businesses as well. host: let's go to our phone lines. we will start with larry calling from pensacola, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. the last to segment a guy called in and said jobs were being taken from the other guys. can you explain the difference to me from the jobs being taken? from my aspect, jobs are being given. is it taking or giving?

guest: sure. during the pandemic, last march and april, the u.s. lost over 20 million jobs. there was more job loss than the 2007-2009 recession. it was unusual in that nature. now we are at a time where we gained initially very fast when doctors offices reopened and schools and things of this nature reopened. we are still climbing back, but not at the same one million jobs a month pace. there are jobs available. the last data from the federal government was 8 million open jobs, but we still have millions who are unemployed and aliens who have left the labor market all together -- millions who

have left the labor market altogether. host: we have another social media follower who has a question for you -- are the jobs that we are talking about, how many are these people taking 2 or 3 part-time jobs? guest: they are not all full-time jobs. a lot of those jobs -- half the jobs added this past month -- were in leisure and hospitality. those tend to not necessarily be full-time jobs. the figure we are talking about are the number of people on payroll. that social media guest is right. in some cases one person can be filling two or three of those slots. there is some data that looks at individual people, and that is

the unemployment rate. we know 5.8% of adults who want to work cannot find a job right now. that is an individual person. host: do we know what wages those jobs average out to? do we know what the pay for those new jobs being added -- do we know what they are paying? guest: wages are rising, which is a sign that the labor market is tight and employers have to bid up wages to attract workers, but leisure and hospitality is the lowest paying wage sector. there will be people starting those jobs somewhere near the minimum wage and in about 20

states, minimum wages $7.25 an hour. e-commerce, transportation, those jobs average $26 an hour. where the hottest hiring is right now is where the lowest paying jobs are. what we are seeing now is actually a strong demand for labor -- a strong demand for labor. what are some reasons why people are not willing to accept the jobs? i heard a lot of people saying in your last segment " it is because of the enhanced unemployment benefits." those are in place in many

states until september, which means some people can be on benefits for 18 months. if you are able to collect $600 a week in unemployment benefits, that will give you what you good make working at eight $15 an hour job -- at a $15 an hour job. in washington dc, downtown is still quiet. at summer -- in the summer you made a colleague for coffee ended is packed.

the buses and trains go into downtown. it may be an hour and a half commute to get out to the suburbs. that may be it now worth it to take a job -- not worth it to take a job. host: let's go back to our phone lines. frank is calling from florida. go ahead, frank. caller: i have a few comments and questions. one of the comments i would like to make is the socioeconomic status you are in determines whether you need the help or not. 6% of the population in america has $10 million or more in assets. host: that is your question, frank? caller: that is the comment.

the question is who determines who we should help? guest: there are a couple different things there. in terms of unemployment benefits specifically, that is something where you would apply to the state. most states have a state labor department. they are the ones that will make the determination, but they have to follow federal guidelines. what changed during the pandemic during stimulus bills, both those signed by president trump and president biden, they expanded the eligibility for those who could receive unemployment benefits. gig workers are not usually eligible for unemployment benefits because they did not have an employer. . they were self-employed during this -- they were

self-employed. during this pandemic, that was greatly expanded. people could get unemployment benefits, even though they were not eligible through their employer. a longer length of time people could stay on benefits. under normal economic conditions, in some states it is 12 or 13 weeks. then you lose benefits. the one time or i guess three times stimulus checks were given to a broad section of people. there are qualifications set by state and federal governments. host: on yesterday, president biden came out and discuss the role his administration played in helping businesses.

i want to play for you what president biden said. >> small businesses and restaurants were getting killed. now we are delivering the support they need to reopen and stay open. schools are struggling to reopen so we made acts in aiding teachers a priority. we -- state governments had to lay off educators and first responders. many are now back and a job thanks to the rescue plan. in may, state and local governments add 103,000 educator jobs. we will support state and local governments, which will help get people back to work. small businesses are able to take advantage of a tax credit called the employee retention tax credit.

it offers a generous tax credit to hire or retain more workers. through our restaurant revitalization fund, we estimate being able to help over one hundred thousand restaurants stay open. guest: he talked about the idea of incentivized retention of businesses -- or for businesses to retain employees. it is different from what we had at the start of this pandemic in march and april of last year. the u.s. incentivized the separation of that employer- employee relationship because there was at that time a $600 a week bonus on top of state benefits and mandated closures across the economy. we saw 20 million people lose

their jobs and put on these relatively generous unemployment benefit programs. other countries incentivized workers to stay with their employers but sometimes their hours or wages were cut. in the u.s., it is very hard to cut people's wages when they are on the job. you could argue those incentives worked. people are going out into spending money. but they may have lost their job, and now they are trying to find a new opportunity, and may be hesitant to do that. getting a person to go back to work is more challenging than may be that person is willing to say " i am ready to take a vacation and go to the beach," or something like that.

people are willing to spend their money, but maybe not 100% comfortable -- keep in mind, given this data in mid-may, people are less comfortable with the idea of going back to the office, going back to a factory, being around the same people in close quarters every day, as opposed to " i will go one off and eat at a local restaurant." host: let's talk to and it who is calling -- annette, who is calling from randall's town, maryland. caller: does anyone think that 20 million of those jobs that were lost -- 20 million, some of those people have passed away from covid? guest: that is a good question.

yes, some of those jobs, people separated from their jobs because they got sick. i'm sure some, unfortunately, died. some who were separated from their jobs did not come back right away because they were fearful of becoming sick. that is still persisting out there. that was allowed. early in the biden administration, they put out guidance and said " if you are offered a job, you have to go back to work, -- the biden administration put out guidance and said " if you feel the workplace is unsafe, you do not have to take that job." that was out there. if you think you might get sick, you have a condition where becoming sick would be at a higher risk, you do not have to take the job. host: let's talk about the labor

force participation rate. in may, it was 61.6%. what is the labor force participation rate, and why should we care? guest: labor force participation rate is the share of adults who either hold jobs or are actively looking for jobs. someone who is an 85-year-old retiree is not unemployed. someone who chooses to stay-at-home with children, they are outside the labor force. a little less than two thirds of american adults want a job. that number has been trending down in general for the last few decades and then fell even further during the pandemic. a lot of people lost jobs, but they did not become unemployed, meaning they are working every day to look for a job.

they stopped working altogether. that is one of the reasons why economists think we have a tight labor market. there are millions of less people 25 to 40 years old seeking jobs. there -- a lot of economists theorize there is a connection there, that unemployment benefits are allowing people to support themselves without looking for work, but there are other reasons as well. schools -- if you have to stay home with your child, maybe you cannot actively look for work. another factor is eldercare. in lot of people pulled their family members out of nursing homes and move them back into their homes.

that is a full-time job in a lot of cases to take care of an older american. there is also retiring. more than 2 million people retire during the pandemic and you can see why. some older people may be concerned about their health, but returning to work in the workplace. they may not be comfortable with the technology. i talked to to a worker who said " i do not want to do my job over zoom." he does not want to change the way he does his work. his housing values stayed up, his 401(k) looks good, and it is not like the last recession where people had to work longer because they lost so much money. it might incentivize a lot of people to retire. host: one of our social media

followers wants to ask a question about underemployment. " what is the implication for the report in the u.s. meaning older workers are underemployed and have stopped looking?" can you tell us what underemployment is? guest: one of the aspects of the report captures people who have part-time jobs, but would prefer full-time work. that is one measure of underemployment. another way that is sometimes talked about is say you have the academic qualifications to be a surgeon, but if you are working as april reese to, maybe -- a barista, maybe you are underemployed. there are some businesses where that is happening because a

lot of the jobs are available in restaurants and warehouses and may be you have a college degree and you are not able to find a job in your field, but there is also the issue of skill redevelopment. if you went to college in the 1980's, maybe you need to get up to speed with some of the latest technology before you can qualify for a job that now needs a bachelors degree. host: let's talk to diane calling from st. paul,. minnesota -- st. paul, minnesota. caller: i have been in the health care field since 2009. i'm 71 years old now. when this pandemic happened, i had to quit that job and go home and take home of my mother who

was in a nursing home. i took her out of a nursing home because i wanted her to live. the nursing home was receiving all the good money from medicare, but they paid me $11 an hour for five hours a day i stayed with my mom. that is what i am concerned about. why is it that the health care field has to have front care workers, but in minnesota, that is what they started you out. that is because of the medicare guidelines. when is that going to change, because we have a lot of people that is the field they are working in. i worked in that field since 2009, and i made good money because i worked a lot of overtime. then here i was with -- guest: so many important points

you bring up there. one, this downturn and recession was unusual because even though it was a pandemic, we lost health care drops. that is an amazing -- health care jobs. so many doctors offices closed, so many nursing homes star residents leave and therefore laid off staff. we saw a decline in health care drops, which never happens. it is usually the recession-proof industry. when you are talking about home health care aides, even aides in nursing homes, they are typically low pay jobs. $11 to $13 an hour sounds like what they get paid there. even though $11 an hour is not

much to get paid, when you multiply that by 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that is a lot of money for families to pay. a lot of it is paid through medicare and medicaid, and they want to watch budgets. that is getting some attention here in washington. part of the infrastructure plans being talked about are looking at " are there things that can be done for care workers that could boost to their wages, make that a better paid job?" the argument against that is, who is paying for it? if you have these caregivers being paid $11 an hour $20 an hour, the government needs to

double the taxpayer dollars. host: let's talk to ed: from maryland. -- let's talk to ed calling from maryland. caller: what having the -- is having the country vaccinated important in bringing back jobs? how do you think the president is doing on having the country vaccinated? thank you. guest: thanks for your question. a lot of the economists i talked to think that vaccination rates are an important indicator of bringing jobs back. they believe that once people are vaccinated, that removes this potential barrier of " i'm scared to go back to work in a

public space like a store, or factory." that is something economists are watching. vaccination rates are a precursor, that is their view. as far as president biden's effort there, i am not following that specifically with my reporting. we saw a big run up this spring to get a lot of people vaccinated, but a lot of analysts are telling me we are probably getting to the point where it will be harder. each additional person to get vaccinated will be harder, and if we do not reach a point where there is heard immunity, and people are still cautious, that is a potential break in the economy. host: let's talk to marla calling from jamestown, new

york. caller: the questions diane previously posed answered a lot of mine. she had like three good questions. in watching the program this morning, to incentivize the public to want to go back to work, because as it was pointed out, you were doing better tuesday at home. you are safer collecting a paycheck that gets you safely through. i know it is a complicated approach, but is there a way going forward that you look from the economic standpoint of people receiving wages -- i just moved from pennsylvania to new york. minimum wage in pennsylvania is $7. they can cross the border and

make double that, and it is still not enough. can they boost minimum wage to get people out of the house? i recognize the covid vaccine question too, but money is the bottom line. people will take risks. can they take action in that regard? look at these businesses that cannot afford to pay. they're looking at minimum wage for public service jobs. can you separate and help subsidize these places that are paying minimum wage, and give people an idea like " i am going to go back to work because look at what they are doing! the government will match what the company cannot pay me, and

now i can stay in pennsylvania." guest: we have these more generous unemployment benefits. some states are doing just what you suggested -- they are trying to flip this around and to say " if you go back and get a job, we will pay $300, in some states over $1000." you can say on unemployment benefits even though you are back on the job for a couple weeks. more broadly, of course the federal government and many state governments have looked at raising the minimum wage and that is something that has and discussed in congress, a $15 minimum wage. the caller brings up a great point -- the counterargument is

" higher wages mean companies will not be able to afford it and let employees go." but maybe if you offer $15 an hour, more people may be willing to take that job. a state like new york is going toward -- going towards $15 an hour. walmart, amazon, costco, they're paying way more than the minimum wage in the states where they operate. some folks talk about subsidizing businesses so they

will hire more workers or could pay a better wage. that gets pushed back. it is what someone referred to as " corporate welfare."it is an issue that does get brought up, but it is contentious. host: earlier we talked about there being 25 states that have already decided to end the additional unemployment benefits for people in their state. does this mean that workers, or those that should see a boost in job numbers, or is this just experiment there -- an experiment they are trying? guest: we will see !

there was a recent study by some labor economists that saw an initial increase after that announcement was made in job search activity in some states but it fell off again fairly quickly. some of the states where we see very low unemployment rates and a tight labor market, there is fairly high labor market participation. utah has people out there looking for work. in some cases, it is not clear that the whole issue is people on the sidelines everywhere in the country. before this occurred, in 2019 we had the lowest unemployment rate in 15 years. immigration -- over a ten-year

period a slowdown in immigration and they pandemic has restricted people coming here as guestworkers. we have heard a lot for stories about amusement parks and beach towns not being able to hire workers. they have long relied on people coming from other countries to take those jobs and those are some of the jobs open. host: let's talk to julian calling from aurora, north carolina. caller: you know, someone that 2000 -- i am someone who employs 2000 people. i have some of my employees back. i am missing about 600. the trouble i am finding is they are not wanting to come back to work.

they are getting more benefits to stay at work. i am a fair guy. for example, if i am paying someone $14, $15 an hour, i have 10 different entities that i have -- it is amazing to me that i am finding that american people do not want to work. you can go down to mecklenburg county and charlotte, north carolina or wait county in raleigh and get a busload -- i own ski resorts, i own hotels -- the government will pay you $500 a person in a hotel that will sleep up to 1000 people.

you know how much money i am making off of the government? illegals when they come into the country, they get authorization to work until their court date is settled into they are exported back to honduras or venezuela. guest: this whole issue of whether people are willing to work or come back to work is a very interesting one. an employee is offered to they are pretty much required to go back to that job -- offer to go back to their original job. unless there is some extenuating

circumstance, they are pretty much required to go back to that job. there is a process for that. they not allowed to say " i want to stay on these benefits," when you are offered comparable employment. host: steve, good morning. caller: eric mentioned earlier the guidelines for medicare is exactly what allows people to pay $11 an hour . i work at a long-term care facility here in jacksonville. our managers are being played $45,000. what sets the upper levels for what can be paid to a nonprofit organization? guest: guest: i am not familiar guest: --

guest: i am not familiar with the laws and rules around that space. a nonprofit organization should have boards and rules. you can bring that up with the board. host: one last quick question -- when we look at the jobs report, everyone looks up except for retail. what is happening in retail where it is going down? guest: we are sorting things out in retail. the pandemic changed a lot of the way americans shopped. there is a question of whether americans will return to grocery stores. today -- i am fortunate enough to be vaccinated -- i could have gone to the grocery store.

that is changing. there could be more delivery jobs, more warehousing jobs, and less jobs manning the deli counter. host: you wrote a story last month saying policymakers cannot agree on causes of shortage of workers. what can we expect to see out of congress about the current job situation? or maybe congress is done doing what it is going to do. what can we expect from our lawmakers? guest: we are not going to see a big change relative to the current labor shortage. president biden indicated he is willing to allow unemployment benefits to rolloff at the beginning of september. we are beginning to get our change by doing nothing. at the beginning of september, no more unemployment benefits, no more expansions, and we will see if that makes a difference.

infrastructure can mean everything from building bridges to caregiving jobs, but that is a longer-term 10 or 15 year investment. host: we would like to thank eric morath, the wall street journal's labor and economic policy reporter. thank you. coming up next, we will take more of your calls on your top political story. you can see the numbers on screen. we will get back to your phone calls in just a moment, but first, former president trump is headlining the north carolina republican convention tonight in greenville, north carolina. joining us with a preview is meredith mcgraw. good morning. first and foremost, what are you

going to be watching for in the trump speech tonight? guest: tonight this is former president trump's big public debut since he last spoke in january at the conservative political action convention in florida. since then, he has made some speeches and mar-a-lago for political supporters and fundraisers. he has taken meetings and done interviews with friendly news outlets -- fox news, oan. this is the first time we will have heard from him publicly and quite a few months. it is kicking off what will be a string of public experiences, as he steps back into the public arena and tries to be a force ahead of the 2022 midterm elections and he continues to tease running for president again in 2024.

he has sent out statements that have talked about the ongoing audits in arizona and across the country. he has also sent out a statement attacking infectious disease expert dr. anthony fauci who has come into the crosshairs of a lot of conservatives lightly. -- conservatives lately. his advisers hope he will take a forward-looking position in his speech tonight. they want him to talk about his administration's accomplishments. we will have to see if that actually happens. the past few months according to advisers i have spoken with, dozens who have had conversations with him, the former president has focused a lot of his attention on the 2020 election and airing a lot of the grievances he had about how it played out and about him losing,

but him coming back out and making a public appearance again, this is a way for him to push himself back into the public eye. he has been deplatformed from facebook and twitter.advisors hope he has a more forward-looking message and does not continue to talk about what happened in 2020. host: why north carolina? is there a cigna begins that this is at the annual state gop convention in north carolina -- significance that this is at the annual state gop convention in north carolina? guest: you are talking about diehard republicans there in the state so it will be a very friendly crowd for him. there is also going to be an

interesting senate midterm election going on. senator booker who voted -- senator burr who voted for trump's impeachment will not be running again. right now there are three confirmed candidates. we will watch for who he mentions, if he talks about senator burr at all. many will be lessening for who he will support in the midterm elections because they think those endorsements of his carry a lot of weight. host: if he does bring up midterms, we expect him to bring up whether he is going to run for president again in 2024. guest: he has flirted with the idea. as statement came out yesterday from his pac pushing back

against facebook's decision not to put him back on the platform until 2023. he said " next time i am in the white house," which many took as a kent that he does want to come back to the white house. i know he has been having private conversations with allies about running again. it is something he is at least behind the scenes taking very seriously, so we will have to see how much he talks about it. host: you mentioned that the facebook band went from -- ban went from indefinite to two years and the president has shutdown his blog. does this speech give him the media exposure that he would have gotten if he was still on social media?

host: those -- guest: those platforms you mentioned have such a large reach -- millions and millions of people every day, so he is missing out by not being on those platforms. another thing that is overlooked from his band is how important those platforms are generating donations from donors. it is important for his team to send out messages and for him to talk about whatever is on his mind with supporters. not having that has been a big loss for him but just by the statements he has been sending out, he has been happy with some of the reach they have gotten. the media is still paying attention to him as he continues to play a big role in republican party. host: when he ran for president

in 2020, he won the state of north carolina by a margin of 75,000 votes. do republicans i expect his appearance there to help boost other republicans in the state? guest: they are hoping for a boost from donald trump, but something important to keep in mind with north carolina is their suburban areas have experienced a large demographic shift and their population sizes have increased. when you're talking about areas like that, you're talking about more college-educated people, and a lot of women to. those are a demographic that the former president has struggled with. when i was speaking with a

republican strategist from that state yesterday, he said the state continues to perform well for republicans, but one thing with president trump's messaging is that a lot of it has not really registered with some suburban voters. we have seen that play out in the 2020 election. host: do you expect any surprises, or anything unusual from this speech tonight? guest: i wish i had a crystal ball. with this former president, you never know what he might say or do. he often comes to these speeches thi -- making surprise announcements or surprise attacks on people. i have no idea what exactly has messages going to be tonight. his advisors were still working

on his speech as of last night. we will see what he decides to talk about tonight in north carolina. host: we would like to thank meredith mcgraw for coming on with us this morning and giving us a preview of what former president trump will be staying tonight in north carolina. thank you so much. i want to remind all our viewers that you can watch that speech live tonight at 7 p.m.. former president trump will be speaking at the 2021 north carolina republican convention in greenville, north carolina. you can watch it tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, and on our free c-span radio app. we are going to open up our phone lines so you can tell us what your top political story is.

we will open up our regular lines. republicans, you can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, your number is (202) 748-8000. independents, your number is (202) 748-8002. we are always reading on twitter and facebook. let's start with willie who is calling from hollywood, florida on the democrat line. caller: how are y'all doing this morning? host: go ahead. caller:. i wan to talk 0--i want to talk about the truth. the god of abraham, isaac and jacob told me to tell this people that the devil is a liar and the truth is not in any of them. they have the zeal of god but

not according to righteousness. they have been lovers of money more than lovers of god. they turned away and created their own righteousness, which is the constitution, not the 10 commandments. host: let's go to oliver who is calling from falls church, virginia on the democratic line. caller: good morning. the conflict --topic this morning as political stories, am i right? host: the top political stories you want to talk about. caller: i am in the metro d.c. area. i have lived here all my life. i am retired after working 25 years for marriott, and i want america to know i will turn 68.

please, america, listen to what is going on with the trump organization. the whole group of them are rotten to the core. they have been involved in illegal stuff for years. tax evasion, money laundering, and all that. the american people have to wake up and realize they have to sever ties with mr. trump or this country will fall apart. host: thank you for letting me speak up --let's go to crowley, -- host: let's go to mike calling from crowley, north carolina. i think we lost mike, so let's go to dorothy calling from pine bluff, arkansas on the independent line. caller: i want to talk about the

town talking about firing dr. fauci. they seem to disagree about the origins of the virus coming out of china. dr. fauci has been a good leader and he has done a great job at leading us to the pandemic. president biden has decided to keep him on, and keep him working with the pandemic, so i would hope that america would be appreciative of a person like dr. fauci. host: let's go to gwen who is calling from detroit, michigan on the democratic line. caller: good morning. my top political story is the trump people who rioted the capital, the insurrectionists.

i heard a lot of them are only getting 1 to 3 years' punishment. that is incentive for them to do it again! that does not make any sense. how can they attack the capitol like isis did, going around destroying everything, and not get punished? they need to be punished so they do not do it again. if that was somebody else other than trump people out there, incentives would be higher. these people are allowed to go on vacation. that is incentive to do it again. trump had the nerve to go out and campaign again when he is under investigation for all these different things. things, it is ridiculous. host: and from and why, ohio --

ann from ohio, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. my statement is that all of the next wars that will come up will be biomedical worker. anytime china -- biomedical warfare. anytime china has an issue with the country, all they will do is drop any type of biomedical virus on those areas and that is what they will have to deal with. and there will be no more traditional gun warfare. thank you. host: to fernando calling from san francisco, california on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, my friend. i am from the kennedy administration, ok, i was a little kid back then. so, i am democratic from that administration. number one, i dislike that dump

truck, that is what i call it, dump. number two, i worked at the boating -- voting booths and i vote, i did not vote or work for george dump or whatever his name is. that is the first time in years that i did not work at a polling location. you make good choices. host: a couple of stories in the major newspapers this morning. and then get back to what the stories you want to talk about. a story in the washington post that says vice president harris will depart sunday to guatemala in -- and mexico, a trip to highlight the biden administration efforts to address the root causes of mass migration from central america to the united states.

traveling abroad for her first time as vice president she will arrive sunday evening in guatemala, pledges for hundreds of thousands of coronavirus vaccine doses, $320 million in regional humanitarian aid and a $4 billion long-term plan to boost development and security across central america. those sweeteners may be used to offset what are expected to be tougher messages about battling corruption and upholding democratic norms. that is the story in the washington post this morning. here another story coming out from the insider about former president donald trump's legal advisory, don mcgahn. a couple of paragraphs from that. former president donald trump's white house counsel, don mcgahn, was distressed by his bosses response to the miller expense ticket -- mueller investigation.

quote, mr. mcgann testified at length to an extremely dangerous period in our nation's history in which president trump increasingly unhinged and fearful of his own liability attempted to obstruct the molar investigation at every turn. new york representative -- said in a statement. the closed-door testimony came as a part of the investigation into trump's obstruction of the investigation of russian interference in the 2016 election. those were two stories being talked about in the news this morning. we want to know what your top public policy story is. let's go to head from tampa bay, florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i want to talk about -- let's go to portland, oregon

when everybody was rioting, burning the town down, and destroying businesses. they were mainly democrats, antifa, and other political parties that i will not mention about because of the simple reason i did not believe there is a difference between white, black people, yellow people, who are all u.s. citizens, but when a certain party destroys a town and all of the democrats say they are venting, that is very wrong. going back to the lady talking about how trump supporters went through the white house. if you watch the videos of that, they did not destroy nothing, they walked through, but you go back to the portland incident and as the city in where they

are throwing rocks through windows, looting, burning buildings, blocking the interstate, so people cannot goad to and from work -- cannot go to and from work. people need to wake up, this is not about democrats and republicans. this is about your freedom and people just need to wake up. host: there was a video showing some windows in the capitol being broken and there were reports of computers and other material being stolen from the capitol. so, it was not exactly just people walking through, was it? caller: the computer that was taken was taken by u.s. special forces. host: kathy calling from denver, north carolina on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning.

my top story this morning is now that ouchi -- without few -- fauci is coming to light with his personal part in that wuhan funding of research gain of function -- and thank you to rand paul for getting to the bottom of this, the truth is coming out, my question is, when we get to the bottom of why the suppose it -- supposed vaccines were created. i believe that they are not necessary at all and i do believe that these bioengineered injections are causing the god-given and natural -- god-given natural immunity of we

the people to fail. host: so you have not been vaccinated and do not plan to be vaccinated? caller: that is correct, sir. i believe that -- so why aren't we looking into dr. fauci's gain and the nih's gain from these experimental injection that your -- that are in my books totally unnecessary. host: there are stories about dr. fauci in today's paper, so i want to read one of the stories. this is from the hill.com. white house chief article advisor dr. anthony fauci late friday pushed back on criticism from republicans on the release of thousands of emails this week on the backlash and inappropriate. it is an attack on science he said during an interview on

msnbc's rachel maddow show when asked about the latest attacks targeting him. dr. fauci has faced scrutiny from republicans over his resolved guidance over masking and other issues amid the pandemic. with the latest criticism centering on his approach to the theory that the virus may have been -- may have originated in a lab. emails between ouchi and others show correspondence from early on in the pandemic, raising the possibility that the virus came from a lab. dr. fauci cast doubt on the theory publicly know the emails do not show the scientists out right rejecting the prospect. that is coming from the hill this paper this morning about the anthony fauci versus the gop criticism. back -- back to our phone lines and talk to robert from virginia beach, virginia on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i just wanted to say that i think it is very important that the democrats in the filibuster move toward passing actual bills that are progressive and result in change, such as raising the minimum wage or protecting the right to bring working-class people to the middle class, it would be very hard to bring in 2024 without passing bills -- real change, especially for the working class, eating the labor movement, -- eight and the labor movement -- aiding the labor movement -- getting rid of the filibuster, getting back toward primary corporate, moderate democrats with progressive working-class champions, that is

what needs to be done to advance in my opinion. host: kevin calling from hamilton, ohio on the republican line. good morning. caller: yeah, i just want to talk about gain of function fauci, why does everyone want to protect him? host: joe from arizona on the independent line. good morning. caller: i am appalled by the way congress and americans are acting so un-american over trivial things. they are acting like adult children most of the time and i personally think it is ridiculous that we have adult children leading this country right now. thank you. host: i want to bring to you another story coming out of california, that has to do with

gun rights in the united states. a federal judge in california on friday overturn the state's three decade old ban on assault weapons, which she called a failed experiment prompting a sharp retort from the governor. the law was challenged and a suit in 2019 against the state including james miller, a california resident and the san diego county gun owners, a political action committee. the judge of that u.s. district court for the federal district of california wrote that sections of the state's penal code -- code that restricted the use or declared unconstitutional and shall be enjoyed. the judge granted a 30 state -- 30 day stay of the ruling after the request of rob, a move that would allow him to appeal. once again, that is coming out of california where a federal

judge overturned the state's three decade old ban assault -- -- on assault weapons. good morning. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i want to talk about the filibuster and the bills getting passed, i vote democrat and i would like to see the democrats tighten up a bit, do not be scared, go out and fight the republicans like they would fight us, the things they do. this wishy-washy, get rid of them and get someone that will work with the democrats. that is my comment. host: george holding from hillsborough, ohio on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i would like to comment on the border. are you there? host: go ahead. caller: i would like to comment on the border situation. i am a republican, we need to be doing something about it, congress needs to do something about the border, i am from tucson, arizona, i have seen nice people driven north by one million illegal immigrants that tore it apart, graffiti, beer bottles broken on the mountain, so much violence and gunplay and drugs that most of the good people had to move out of town or up north. i do not know why the republicans are not outraged and

not doing something about it. something needs to be done. and dr. fauci, the sars and ebola virus were genetically engineered into the covid virus and a report there earlier on the scene reported all of this and he was shut up and was covered up and i read that the first day he put it out. host: calling from independence, missouri on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i want to say that we need some kind of ethical gun protocol, not gun control, ethical gun protocol that can be applied by the state, like identifying --

also there's a topic that talks about gun protocols. we need to let children be armed with guns to let them protect themselves when they go to school against wolves, and alligators. host: robert from oliver springs, tennessee on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing this morning? host: just fine. caller: i would like to say that it is nice to see california get their liberal gun control shoved up or the sun does not shine because we have a right to bear arms and -- bare arms. as a conservative, it is nice to see things change for an stance where the liberals -- for

instance where that liberals cannot use the courts to get their agendas passed. honestly, i do not care what happens with the liberals and their agenda, they can go to china for all i care. host: let's go to vero beach, florida on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. the situation in antioquia. -- in ethiopia. there is starvation there, people running away, leaving the country, going to sudan. killing people, please, america, stop this. host: candace from arkansas on

the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling because the trump situation, i have been here -- i spoke about trump -- i want to know, what are they doing about the indictment and everything he is supposed to have going on whether or not they are going to have a trial or not, so i would love to hear some more about that. let's go to robbie calling from linden, virginia on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. yeah, i wanted to say to my fellow democrats that be careful why do we change the rules to

meet our needs, we all need to be playing by the rules. it seems lately -- we come back -- it will come back to bite us. he wants me to change to an independent or republican because it seems when we do not get our way, we want to change the rules. host: coming up after the break, we will be joined by national review contributor lyman stone who will be here to talk about his recent piece looking at religion in that united states. stick with us, we will be right back. >> book tv on c-span2 has taught nonfiction books and authors every weekend. tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, in her book

"insanity defense," national security insider jane harman looks at pressing national security issues. she is interviewed by janet, former homeland security interviewed during the obama administration. sunday 5:00 at noon eastern on -- a conversation with military historian matt on his more than two dozen books on the wars in the 20th century, including his soon-to-be released "operation pedestal." sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, in his book, james vice chancellor and president at the university of buckingham in england talks about private schools in poor countries elevating their educational standards and setting an example that other countries can learn from. wash book to this weekend on c-span2 -- watch book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> next week on the secretary of

state antony blinken comes to capitol hill to testify on foreign policy operations in the president's 2022 budget. on monday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, he appears in a house foreign affairs committee and on monday 2:30 p.m. eastern, on state and foreign operations. on tuesday at 2:15, he answers questions from the senate foreign relations committee. watch live coverage of all of these hearings on c-span, online on c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> wj continues. host: our spotlight on magazine segment and in this segment, we are going to be talking to lyman r. stone, who is the democrat -- the chief information therefore demographic intelligence and a recent fellow at the institute for family studies. he has written an article called "america loses religion, somewhat" on national review.

good morning. guest: good morning, it is good to be with you. host: tell us what demographic intelligence is. guest: demographic intelligence is a population forecasting firm that i run, we forecast birth, population, marriages, anything like that for private, nonprofit, and government entities that need to know what the future will look like. host: you have this great article that in national review called "america loses religion, somewhat." first of all, what prompted you to write this article? guest: a wild back, -- a while back, i wrote about changes in it religiosity over time in the united states. that was motivated by a sense that although we think of

religion as an area, religion and government shall not be, changes to the religious fabric in our country have -- they alter the things they want from their government, and sometimes, government action, may nonetheless have significant religious implications. so, i wanted to delve into that and explore it. from that research project, ultimately came this article which is a popularization. host: what are the arguments you make -- one of the arguments you make in the article is that the understanding of religion in the history of the u.s. is often incorrect by both conservatives and progressives and i want a briefly read the things you say here. for conservatives, america was fundamentally religious and

specifically christian from its founding until at least the 1960's with secularism taking hold over time, pushing the country away from its roots. for progressives, american history as progressive, the shackles of superstition and the unenlightened mind are being removed and american history is a story of growing religious diversity, reduced opposition of nonbelievers to religious institutions and liberty of conscious and the rights of secularism, which you say, the only problem with these accounts is that they are both wrong. so, what do you mean by this? guest: both of these accounts are basically linear. both tell a story where you can sum up american history by either once upon a time my things were very good and they got worse or once upon a time, things were very bad and they got better. you can look at either the

history of religiosity, that is how many people are religious, how many people are going to church, how many are a member of a religious organization, the trends are nonlinear. some time, they are higher, sometimes they are lower. they oscillate, like a wave than a line. if you look at the history of religious legislation in the u.s., you see periods of intense repression and periods of liberalization. there is no linear trend over time. we see new forms of formal religion today. that never existed in the past. and we see liberty in the past that does not exist today. ultimately, my arguments here is that -- they do is understand the face of religion in history. there is not a linear process, rather there is a constant struggle between religion that

they have on people, moral ideation and tug against it from people who see the influence. host: you say the argument that the u.s. is going to get less religious and less and less religious in the future is not an argument you can make right now or are you saying that the argument is wrong? guest: in the near future, it looks like the u.s. is getting less religious. that is pretty set in stone. however, the u.s. today it remains a more religious than we were in the 1800s. in terms of the share of people who are members -- members of religious organizations or are attending religious services or things like that. we are not a uniquely secular time. only if you compare to the period since the 1930's. the 1930's-19 60's were the most

religious time in history. for the near future, things look like they will get less religious. will it stay that way forever? i do not think so. these things tend to come in waves. there were periods before 1700s, even earlier where the evidence suggests that religious participation in europe was very low and then at rose. what i would suggest that any kind of declension nest narrative of the long arc of history as it relates to religion is probably wrong. host: let me remind our colors that they can take part in this conversation, we will open up regular lines, republicans, your number is (202) 748-8001. democrats, your number is going to be (202) 748-8000. independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can text us at

(202) 748-8003. and we are always reading on social media, on twitter, at @cspanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. now, live in, you write this in your article, you talk about the tide of public opinion. while the supreme court in recent years has cited with religious organizations, the tide of religious -- a big opinion is turning against religious exemptions and even against non-discrimination protections based on a opinion or creed. again, while this may feel new, it is not. religious leaders -- discriminatory laws are older than the constitution. what you mean by that? due to -- guest: the idea is that the old precedent of religious termination, virtually

almost all of the early colonies had a state church, there were congregationalist churches, so many states essentially prohibited -- jews were denied access to any kind of public role in most states and in some states, up until the 20th century, quakers, mennonites, they faced unique discrimination. even groups today that we think as congrats -- conventional like baptists, methodists, or lutherans, faced intense waves of persecution in various periods. for lutherans must certainly during world war i and world war ii, there were major assaults on lutheran identities because it was associated with germans. for catholics, there were the blaine amendments in the 1840's to the 1880's that supposedly

prohibited sectarian schools, but only prohibited funding of jewish and catholic schools while public schools continue to have protestant religious content. virtually every group in some period were discriminated against except for congregationalists and anglicans who always had a good in this country. which is to say that religious discrimination -- at the same time we do see new forms of religious discrimination. so, there religious freedom laws were passed -- especially 1980's and 90's which was the desire to create protections for legends liberty in the recognition of the fact that we are becoming an increasingly religious society

and that kind of claims that religious identity might make on some people is becoming hard to predict increasingly varied, so we created specific protections for religious identity to ensure that despite this change in the kind of -- as we become more religious, we will continue to afford the same level of liberty to new religious movements as we have always had or as we have always tried to provide. in recent years, they are under attack, specifically as there has been an effort to block nondiscrimination provisions -- this is an understandable tension, there is real not as termination interests on both sides of this coin. i do not want to act like this is a simple issue. but, to the extent that we used nondiscrimination rules on one protected class, say social identity, to limit the autonomy

and autonomous decision-making over another class, say religious identity, we are trading off important forms of liberty. maybe public opinion will favor of that trade-off. we have to be honest. it is a trading away of one kind of liberty for another kind. host: you have a chart called historical ritual -- religiosity in the u.s., in the chart, we see a clear drop starting in the 1960's. what happened in the 1960's that caused this decline and what difference between the 1960's and today when it comes to religion? guest: there's a lot of factors in play. over the course of the 20th century, one of the most important factors relates to education. specifically, it is not the people got more education, there

is a whole lot of research showing that when a population becomes more educated, they do not tend to become less religious. the thesis is that as a people get better informed, rational minded, religiosity will fall. it does not hold up in the empirical evidence. however, as children spend more time in school, and as those schools become more explicitly secular, as religion plays less of a role in them as religious extracurriculars take a back seat to the expanding secular extracurriculars, as the numbers of hours and days the children spend in schools and at the time in public schools -- it is often nonreligious, as exposure to religious households or a church

decline, they are less likely to be religious as an adult. we have an idea in american culture that kids are religious, then they leave the household and go to college, and they lose their faith. as an adult, they wander away. this is completely false. this is not what happens with religion. statistically speaking, children begin to lose their faith, that is, they tend to become less religious around age 7 and that secularization continues and is most intense between the ages of 7 and 16. it continues and anyone and until 22, people become more religious over time. secularization is not driven by rational adults citing that the claims of faith did not make sense. secularization is driven by children observing that their role models and peers do not

seem to think religion is very important or cool. that is what drives secularization. it is about cultural scripts, not rational thinking. that is why role models in school and the presentation of religion in school is so important to driving religious trends over the last century. host: and you have a paragraph in your article that builds with this and i want to bring it to our viewers. as public school expands as claim on children's lives and uses that claim to promote an overtly nonreligious life force, religion loses its salience and prestige for kids. it is not that schools undermine faith, it is that schools provide alternative role maters, advisors, and cultural narratives. guidance counselors and set up pastors, progress in math and set of growth in piety. it is this that drives

secularization, not overt tax -- not overt tax on it. bans on school prayer may have had some effect but the growth of afterschool sports and set of afterschool church is probably more decisive. is that an argument for bringing more religious activity back into public schools? guest: i do not think so. one of the problems is that we do now have a much more secular society. i'm not saying that that is the problem. now that we have a more secular society, we bring in more religious content to the school, you will trample on some parents liberty. you cannot pretend like you live in 1950 america and everyone is religious, -- i am not recommending that. what i am suggesting is that there is a liberty interest, parents have a right to have a

fair shot passing on their religious faith to their children divided it is not criminal or harmful or abusive in some sense, right? they have that right. that applies to atheist parents as much as as fundamentalist parents, they both have that right. having public schools -- or having only one supported school option, public schools, that supports only one specific type of faith in children's lives as a threat to an important liberty interest. i would say that the correct solution is not to bring back school prayer, which will trample on a lot of people's liberties, it provides choice. so this can be vouchers, charter schools, or a number of other things. what we need to do is we need to recognize this.

that interest should not be violated by the state deny equal funding on the basis of religion and therefore, we should provide choice. and a key point here is, i am not arguing that we should be enrolling kids in monastic institutions. public schools are a peculiar environment. in the real world, religion is important in a people are religious, religious -- religions are highly visible, religious claims come up. we treat these environments in school where religion is not very salient at all. it is an de-prioritized it is pushed out of view and the result of this is that we do not train children for the real world. we train children for a fake world, a world that does not exist. as a result, when children enter to that world as an adult, they are not well prepared for

engaging with religious ideation. and this creates the constant problems, reporting on religion in journalism where you get journalists who do not understand basic facts about religious claims. and so i think not only is there a liberty interest where the parents and children volunteer, there is also a question of the social function. one of the social functions of the school is to prepare children to be good citizens, confident -- competent participants and creating an artificially nonreligious environment does not achieve that. host: let's make some our viewers take part, randy from oklahoma on the republican line.

good morning. caller: good morning. your points are well taken and public schools have definitely wrecked the culture and parents have lost control of their kids because of the lawyers in public schools. i would ask a question pertaining to the depopulation agenda 21, which calls -- since you are in the democratic intelligence, lyman, are you watching current events in the history of -- by the way, are you familiar with the objective of reducing the -- are you looking at the engineering of nano tech to what they call a vaccine to depopulate and

destroy the family, the family structure to go into a trance unionist society. host: go ahead and respond. guest: there are a lot questions in there. i will start by dealing with the question of population growth generally. you know, there is a lot of different ways to look at this. you mentioned agenda 21, which for people who do not know, this idea that there is a specific international or united nations backed plan to reduce the earth to population, but i do not think we even need to go that far. it is not necessarily territorial because countries are very public about their views of population policy. they make public statements and what we can see is that there are a lot of countries that

believe that they would like to have lower fertility rates and some maintain that view even as fertility rates fall below really play -- fall below replacement. there are a lot of people on earth who believed that ideal number of children is less than two, they believe that it would be best if humanity became less numerous. these views exist. however, contrary to what you might think, -- the number of countries that are explicitly pro-natal, trying to increase the birth rate is rising. and we do not see -- we do not see a rising frequency of -- we do see a shift away from large families, there are fewer people saying they want 4, 5, 6 kids. mostly what is happening as conversion around two children,

not a move to zero. at the same time, population growth is declining and fertility rates are falling back and i do worry about that. both professionally because it is my job to care about that, to forecast it and personally as a person who believes that every human life is precious and valuable and that every human life added to the world as a blessing and a gift to every other human life and every other person who's life can be shared and enjoyed -- i do mourn the gradual shift to population decline. it is important to that -- to know that that is not coming about because governments or people want it. people continue to desire fertility rates that are consistent with population growth. more and more governments desire higher fertility, not lower. population decline we see is not

because people not wanted, it is because increasingly, it is difficult and costly to have children. if we want to deal with that, that runs into social policies, we are going to have to talk about financial supports for families, child allowances, childcare, and come leave, and these are things that are not on the agenda either for folks who are worried about agenda 21 for example. i think that there is a disconnect here between the policy rationale and the state concern. host: one of our social media followers. guest: the vaccines for covid have no association with a fertility, there is no evidence and there have been studies and a lot of pregnant women and jacket, no evidence that these

vaccines have any impact on male or female fertility or any indicator of fetal health. i wanted to state that curry because -- clearly because this is important right now, there is no evidence that the vaccines have any relation. host: thank you for putting that in there. one of our followers wants to get a better definition of religion from you. can you distinguish between faith and institutions regarding religion. our people not religious because they do not belong to a particular religious organization? guest: a great question. in broad terms, i am a sociologist, which means i am studying boundaries that are socially invisible. i am studying people going to church -- i am studying people being a member, people saying they are something.

studies of a specific belief or even more and tangibly -- intangibly of the conviction -- there is evidence suggesting that religious identification, membership, and participation may be declining faster than it religious belief. that is, as people have supernatural beliefs even when they are not religious so to speak, so i am tracking religious identity, not supernatural or spiritual identity. i should note that the rise in popularity of an astrology, new age religion, wicca and these things points -- often these people do not identify as religious. it points to the continuity of supernatural, spiritual belief even in the absence of what we

classically identify as religion so that creates complexions that religious society is not a lesser prestigious -- a less superstitious society. there is some evidence that superstitious beliefs may have become more common over time. it is important to recognize that supernatural beliefs and religion are not always correlated and sincere faith and external measures of religion are not always correlated but as a sociologist, i am limited to studying those visible externals. at the same time, i am a lutheran, which means i believe that things like baptism and communion are valid measures of faith. and i think most religious people when you encounter someone who says, oh i have

paid, and they never go to church, i do not pass anything onto my kids, you say you have your faith, show me your words. host: thomas from florida on the democratic line. in morning. caller: yes, thank you. a lot of rhetoric, i will simplify it. one of the first things that donald trump did was eliminate the johnson doctrine when he became president which endorses separation of church and state. what has happened is that the republicans are claiming that god is on their side. my brother is a devout evangelical, i am a devout catholic, he has a trumper and we do not talk because he believes that god has took a trump and god has took place. it is a great political ploy.

my belief is that god expects me to act on my conscience, that is why i was against the war and against a criminal like trump. thank you. host: lyman, and he responds there? guest: yeah, that brings up an issue of what is often called christian nationalism and it is this idea -- christian nationalism -- in its strongest form, it refers to the idea that god has chosen america for a special purpose and specifically within america, he has chosen sort of conservative christians as the redeemers of the country and that america truly is only really america when it is christian. this is sort of what i am pointing to it as one of the myths on the right, that there is disbelief that from primordial days, christians and

conservatives and about in all of these things, that is part of my empirical claim, that this is not true, really america was not devout. -- early america was not devout. the caller is pointing the christian nationalism, which exists, there is debate about how seriously we should take it, but certainly people on the left leave that curtain nationalism as a threat. people on the right -- it exists to some extent. it is a bit historical and concerning. it is one of the things that i am criticizing the historical basis to. host: let's talk to craig from tulsa, oklahoma on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. stone, i appreciate you and

your research. i have an idea for an extra line to put on your graph. there was a triangle, liberty at the top and a virtuous citizenry down on one end of the triangle and fate on the other end. what was he does what he was playing out is that faith is healthy for society and if we do not have faith, then you do not have a virtuous citizenry and at liberty at the top is reduced because you have to make more laws to control behavior. so, we lose our liberties and less virtuous citizenry, which is what the founders had, if the government will not work, -- it will not work unless we have a virtuous citizenry. i want to have a graph of the crime rates of youth and adults along with these waves up and down of religiosity, what can you say about? guest: that is a great question.

i have an unpublished project looking at indicators of crime across 200 years of data in the u.s. and i have a prior study when i looked at indicators of crime looking back 100 years. there was a crime wave in the middle of the century, middle of the century was almost -- also the most religious time in history. overall, there is not a lot of correlation between crime and religiosity over time in the u.s. the big reason for that is because neither of them show a strong timeframe, that is both crime and religion, if they were to come in waves, waves do not appear to be strongly correlated. it is appealing to think that religion would simply restrain crime and there is some evidence -- there are a few studies that show very good empirical evidence that religion and increased religiosity reduces crime in some contexts, so there

is a great study of this revival movement in wales as it relates to alcohol for example, dramatically reduced that. however, while there are cases of this, on the whole, the main determinants to crime were not strongly related to religion. so, and i want to mention the other thing you made about making more laws. religious liberty is not a neutral context. there is no neutral conception of religious liberty because i believe my religious liberty requires me to be able to sacrifice a large amount -- if you believe sacrifice -- satirizing a large amount of animals in public is a public health risk, gross, and sensitive and nuts and the children need to see, we are both making negative liberty claims -- i think it harms me

because -- religious liberty is always going to be a question of liberty for who. so often, the periods of time where one religion sees as freeest are going to be periods of time that another group sees as un-free. it will always be a hard question, we will not have an easy resolution to it, but there are places where we can get everybody more choice and that is where a school choice as an important area. it is a place where it is clear that right now, it is un-free for a large share of households, but we can give greater liberty to a large number host:. host:one of our social media followers, when arguing for any particular religion, so here's the question, republic schools operating in the public domain

under the authority of government, which religion or denomination should government insert into public school education? if there is a reason why we have sunday school and private religious schools. guest: that is a great question. this is why i stopped arguing that we should have some change to public schools. i am not arguing that because it creates the problem of which religion will get state approval. what i am arguing is that we should provide school choice, that is that instead of saying they government will give money to educate your child in a secular environment, you should say the government will give education, will give money to educate your child up to some standard wherever a parent wants. so, i am arguing for school choice, not for the public schools having a specific religious curriculum because the questioner is correct. once you have public schools,

public employees, public administration, you're getting into a question of government concession and we do not want specific government concessions. there is an argument to be made that public schools, in a diverse society, they will have to beat secular schools. at that is the case, there is a compelling argument that liberty requires that you then provide vouchers for parents to select other schools because there is no reason to compel or that is to differentially treat enrollment in secular schools over religious schools. that is discriminatory treatment of religion, which is, what i would argue, unconstitutional. host: let's talk to stephen from wilmington, illinois on the democratic line. good morning. caller: hello. excuse me, there. i was forced into the church before i could even think through baptism and then forced to go to sunday school and

church until i finally told my parents i did not believe in god anymore and i was told i would not be allowed to believe -- not believe in god and i think it is superstition that believed in magic and ghost and his people construct by people designed to commit genocide, murder, and control people's behavior, which is why christians hate atheists because they cannot submit us with a belief in hell. host: go ahead and respond. guest: well. excuse me. i understand your point of view. i think anything that happens to a child is forced on the child, so your parents forced you to be baptist, ok. fair enough. if they do not baptize you, i know a lot of people who converted to christianity as adults who would say that they

were mistreated by their parents because they were denied access to things that children that other christians got, everything to eight children -- that have been to a child is chorused. they cannot express, -- is coerced, they cannot express their own desires like an adult. i understand that you might want -- you might be upset that your parents as you believe splashed water on you and then made you i guess drink -- i am sure that really hurt you, but guess what, everything that happens to a child is forced. children do not have the same autonomy as adults. and so to act like this is only something religious people do as a discriminatory, prejudiced, and bigoted view of religion. this is simply what parents do. and they treat religious parents as if they are engaged in a

uniquely troublesome or problematic thing is simply a bigoted perspective. and i think we need to be frank about this. this does not apply -- this applies to christians talking about muslims. like and how christians often talk about muslim religious practices. in the article, i talk a lot about the rise of anti-sharia laws were conservatives want to ban muslims from using others -- islamic beliefs in private arbitration. i think this is an attack on religious liberty. jews and christians use their religious beliefs in private arbitration. let us do it. i think we have the recognized that a very large amount of our criticisms of other people or short religions are basically coming from bigotry -- people to art religions are basically

coming from bigotry. i appreciate the caller, but my view is that that is bigotry we need to move away from. host: we would like to thank lyman r. stone for being with us here this morning and talking about his article in national review, "america loses religion, somewhat." thank you for being with us this morning. guest: thank you, my pleasure. host: we would like to thank all of you, our viewers and callers and social media followers for being with us on another addition -- edition of the washington journal. continue to wash her hand and have a great saturday, we will see you again tomorrow morning. ♪

>> this afternoon speaking at the north carolina republican party's convention in greenville. live at noon eastern. at 7:00 p.m. former president donald trump delivers the keynote address. mr. trump one north carolina in 2016 and 2020. watch live coverage on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us.

>> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> on sunday, military historian and journalist max hastings is our guest on in-depth. >> inflicted humiliation on the planet's most powerful nation. prevail western will. the steroid which on the evening of the 29th of april ascending to a rooftop helicopter security place among the symbolic images. for me, as all of my generation of were correspondence, the struggle was among the foremost experiences of our career. i flew out of the u.s. embassy

on that tumultuous, terrified day. >>'s recent book is the -- his recent book is operation pedestal. chastised, and overlord: d-day and the battle for normandie. join in with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets on sunday with max hastings on book tv on c-span two. visit c-spanshop.org to get copies of books from our featured authors. >> the senate health committee held a hearing on a proposed national paid family and medical leave program. experts and business representatives testified about the challenges of implementing a plan nationally and options to pay for it.